On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 2:26 AM, Fidel Pérez <[email protected]> wrote:
> I have spent some time trying to make a function to loop through nodes > inserting childs, and after that I understand some of the reasons why > looping through nodes is so difficult. My conclusions are: > > - Since the position "p" of a node, right now, offers no more information > than the position on a tree which will disappear if the tree changes, we > might as well set the position value to be the actual numbered position > that node occupies in the tree. > This is an interesting idea, but there is no way I'm going to change the position class as you suggest, for at least the following reasons: 1. The position class appears everywhere in the code. It's way too late to change it significantly. 2. Rather than silently changing the meaning of a position index, we want to know whether p.exists(). Changing the meaning of a position silently is asking for chaos. Changed positions would be time bombs. 3. The position class already has various ways of describing nodes using indices. See p.archivedPosition and p.key. 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.
