On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 5:12 PM SegundoBob <segundo...@gmail.com> wrote:
several months ago, I concluded that Leo-Editor positions are a very bad > idea and that using GNX's instead would be much simpler and much more > robust. > I think that's an overstatement. Scripts are free to use either vnodes or positions as they please. > I also concluded that in a directed graph, I don't need clones because > multiple parents is no big deal in a directed graph. > Clones are well defined only in a DAG. Similarly, "outline order" is well defined only in a DAG. It is possible to define various kinds of traversals on general directed graphs <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_traversal>. These are more complex and less intuitive than for DAGs, but they may be useful in special situations. > Consequently, I stopped worrying about clones. So I don't know if clones > make GNX's inadequate as pointers, requiring that v-nodes be used as > pointers instead of just GNX's. > Each vnode has a unique, unchanging gnx, so on some level of understanding you can use gnx's or vnodes interchangeably. For the little it is worth, in so far as I understand Vitalije, and I don't > completely understand him, I think he is right. > Imo, Vitalije has create a useful and important distinction about positions. They can be used either to identify vnodes or as the basis of traversal methods. I'd like to reserve judgement about the new scheme for now. 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 leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/leo-editor/CAMF8tS0BCVxj%2BGREPnkV0bQwuXzrhZDUXiNmCGaFdq_tvbH_QA%40mail.gmail.com.
