On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 9:01 PM Edward K. Ream <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > > Maybe I don't understand what a 'clone' entails, and perhaps others are having the same misconception? Are you stating that: If I create a node "node a" and put data in subnode "node a1" and that if then I decide I want a clone of "node a1" as a subnode of "node b", that this implicitly 'undoes' the 'regular node status' of A>A1 and makes A>A1 and B>A1 clones of eachother? Said simpler: Does cloning a normal node, make BOTH nodes clones? Or is there still an idea of "this is the original" (A>A1) and "this is a clone of the original" (B>A1) Because your "problem" listed above seems to imply that by cloning a 1 normal node, the result is 2 clones and 0 regular nodes? Mike -- 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/CAN%2B%2B4hE8iZDqmCKGPWgfF9UJPJYYZmJo37YYqRPT0i2_RHrrjQ%40mail.gmail.com.
