On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:47:57 -0800 (PST) "Edward K. Ream" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 1. Unlike any conceivable kind of linking, clones allow me to gather > information together that I can browse *without* jumping around the > outline. This use of clones is very cool, *if* you're comfortable learning and then remembering not to break the rules you need to follow for this to be safe. I find leoTodo.txt or whatever it's called getting in my face sometimes for reasons I don't follow when I'm editing Leo's source. I know this is a cross-file issue. But if I correctly understand the last-clone-read wins rule... ha, I was going to say, even moving a view node below the @file node in the same outline where there's only one derived file involved could cause problems, but perhaps not, given that the last-clone-read wins rule reads derived files *after* the entire outline, so view nodes below the @file node would be ok...? > Unlike with general graphs, each node in a DAGs has a natural set of > descendants. Imo, this property makes DAGs more interesting, in > general, than general graphs. As long as what you're trying to describe fits an descendant structured model, not everything does. I think it's ultimately a personal preference for cost / benefit trade-off, safety and simplicity vs. utility. Clones are better than anything else for constructing views, but not everyone considers the increment in value equal to the increment in cost. This is all really separate from the issue of people trying to use them to generate content, where getting the rules right is more complicated. Cheers -Terry -- 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.
