On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Seth Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:
> You are very far from moving in this direction technically, but I > thought I'd give you a few notes related to this bit of musing that > might lead to some useful reflections and insights: Thanks for these comments. My present thinking is that gnx's relate solely to the node identify that Leo has always supported. All other attributes are "temporary" and "mutable". That doesn't make those attributes useless in any way. The *representation* of these temporary and mutable attributes would be via clones, implemented as usual with "permanent" (until deleted) identity (gnx's). These clones would be created when Leo reads the .leo file containing the attributes. This scheme gives us everything we want: attributes can change, but while they are in effect they create clones as usual. It's quite like a dynamic clone-find-all command, except that the attributes specified can be more general than a search pattern. 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.
