On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 1:08 AM John Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
> Please note I edited my earlier post to clear up some potential > ambiguities. > > Also, after posting I realized that I also needed to clarify that a clone > in the source tree is only considered to be a local clone if it has no > clones outside the source tree, in which case those nodes in the duplicated > tree will be cloned within the duplicated tree but distinct from the source > tree. So a source tree that contains multiple clones within the source tree > but also at least one clone outside the source tree is NOT considered a > local clone for our purposes. So these clones in the copied tree will be > also be clones of those nodes in the source tree. > Thanks for the clarification. It's the reasonable default, imo. 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/CAMF8tS3Lh4kctoFbsB4mUngU52b%2BC7uHPtcvPysvWSivxZOm%3Dg%40mail.gmail.com.
