Bug 141 <https://github.com/leo-editor/leo-editor/issues/141> claims that paste-retaining-clones may be broken. It's worse than that.
Copying from A.leo and paste-retaining-clones back into A.leo is simply a way of cloning and moving a node. It make senses, but it's complicated and non-essential. Otoh, copying from A.leo and paste-retaining-clones into B.leo makes no sense at all. Suppose there is a vnode v_B in B.leo that has the same gnx as vnode v_A in the newly pasted outline. What can we conclude? Nothing! It is dangerous to assume that v_A and v_B refer to the same object. This assumption would bypass *all *the consistency checks that are, or soon will be, in place. Data loss will result if the assumption is false. Furthermore, it seems pointless to *want *to paste-retaining-clones from A.leo to B.leo. These ideas came to me while contemplating how Leo attempts to keep fc.gnxDict up-to-date. As mentioned here <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/leo-editor/AHKEX6dOp-A/75dX-kZsJaYJ>, it's time to simplify this process. I am likely to kill paste-retaining-clones today or tomorrow. I *might *consider reviving paste-retaining-clones later, but only if somebody can explain to me why it makes sense and why it's worth the danger. Your comments, please. 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.
