On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 8:17 PM, 'Terry Brown' via leo-editor <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > It seems that the uA persisting code really should try and save uA >> > info on nodes it can't match... I agree. > I guess it's a question of what the uA data is. No. It's simply a question of where to put restored nodes that contain the uA's. > So just general interest, what happens when you delete __init__ from > class A, do its uAs get assigned to __init__ in class B? And then > where do B.__init__'s uAs get assigned? Good point. The code should warn if a node's uA's get assigned twice. Another warning I've been meaning to mention: pd.find_position_for_relative_unl should probably warn if two nodes match according the the new algorithm *and* both matches have the same length. The matches will *not* have the same length in the example you mention, so maybe that can be used to disambiguate what node is meant. Alternatively, it may be best simply to require an exact match, and fall back on creating nodes to hold uA's in case no match is found. I'll think about this. > I really should try the code :-) Remember that the *only* way that problems can arise is if you (or someone else) modifies the @auto node outside Leo. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
