On Saturday, May 23, 2020 at 2:36:21 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: I have started work on #1593 <https://github.com/leo-editor/leo-editor/issues/1593>. It is tricky. Some initial experiments failed spectacularly.
Instead of using a copy-node followed by the new paste-as-template command, it *might *be better to create a new copy-as-template followed by the existing paste-retaining-clones commands. So let's use the term "copy and paste" to denote whatever commands turn out to be best. > Let's say we have a tree like below. Note that all nodes are NOT clones > unless specifically stated: > > Node A > + Node A1 > + Node A2 > + Node A3 > Node B > + Node A1 (a clone) > + Node B2 > + Node A3 (a clone) > There is a problem in your example. A1 and A2 can't be clones in node B unless A1 and A3 are clones in Node A (or somewhere else). Did you mean that A1 and A2 in A should also be clones? It makes a difference. This question is: "what nodes should be clones after the copy and paste?" There are at least two possible answers: 1. [non-local] *All* nodes in B that were clones when B was copied, provided that they could again be clones after being pasted. 2. [local] Only nodes in B that were clones of *other* nodes in B when the copy was made. I infer answer 1 if A1 and A3 in A should have been labeled "a clone". Otherwise, I infer answer 2. Either way can be made to work, but I would like your answer before going further. I am particularly interested in some examples of how this kind of templating would be useful for you. 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/leo-editor/fc8d065d-f679-4ae9-b733-f51df439c7a1%40googlegroups.com.
