On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 7:55 AM, Fidel Pérez <[email protected]> wrote:
> Im sorry but I still don't understand it: As I just wrote, that's perfectly understandable. There are big holes in the documentation that I'm going to fix next. > > Say we have a tree of nodes. > For being able to represent that list of nodes into a tree we must have > first assigned a position for each node into the tree, therefore, that > position is a piece of information we have out there. > A position isn't something we have "out there". Positions are typically created for a specific, limited purposes. Positions *may* (or may not) become invalid when the structure of the outline changes. The details are too complicated to discuss here. After I explain positions more fully, you should be able to work out the details yourself. > > Given we have the information on how to put each node (also cloned ones) > one after another, the deleting process would consist only on reading that > information backwards, then deleting through that reference. > Actually, deleting nodes in reverse order is a reasonable idea. It *may* help to ensure that positions remain valid as nodes are deleted. But because of clones it's not clear that even this suffices. > > Which is the part I am assuming wrong? > I'm not sure that you are missing anything, but this situation is so complex that only careful testing will ensure that supposed "proofs" of the validity of p.deletePositionsInList are correct. Let's hold off on further discussion just now while I create scripts that will clarify matters. Edward -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
