On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Ville M. Vainio <[email protected]> wrote:
> One improvement could be this: [snip] > (yes, extra newlines needed) > There should probably be extra newline between tnodes to make it easier for > merge tools. I like this idea. No problem likely between tnodes, but adding newlines to body text would required a new file format number. At present it is "2". For the new way we would have <leo_header file_format="3" etc.> > vnode section of the .leo file would need more significant work. I STILL > think the headstring should be in the tnode section. :-) Conceivable. Old versions of Leo won't be able to read the new format *at all*, but other than that the changes are easy. > For vnode hierarchy, finding the representation would need some trial and > error. > Transient vnode ids could do the trick, so that tree structure could be > represented in "flat" fashion: > > <v id=1 parent=3 childindex=1 t=gnx1> > <v id=2 parent=3 childindex=0 t=gnx2> > <v id=3 t=gnx3> > The interesting thing here is that vnodes > - have transient id, that is forgotten after the tree has been created > - are ordered by gnx. This ensures that vnodes don't move around in the .leo > file even when tree is manipulated. VCS merges are good at changing lines, > but very bad when lines move around. > OTOH, this might be akin to open-heart surgery with questionable gains. Real > practice would show whether it would make .leo files okay for collaborative > editing. Interesting ideas. However, now is not the time. Edward -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en.
