On Sun, Jun 25, 2023 at 11:49 AM Thomas Passin <[email protected]> wrote:
> I would rather have created a new gnx:// type and left existing unls alone. I understand your desire for compatibility, but the old url/gnx code was unbearably complicated. I have spent the last week wrestling with the issues. I don't think any better way forward is possible. > Will existing UNL syntax and methods still work? *Syntax*: The old syntax <file-name>#<list of headlines, separated by "-->"> will *not *work. The PR contains an item: Write a script to convert from old gnx form to new. I'll complete and test that script before merging the PR. *Methods*: the answer is too complicated to discuss in detail: - Some methods remain unchanged. Others have changed significantly. - g.findUNL is now in the attic. I see no reason to retain it. - Few scripts are likely to use the existing url/unl methods. It is impossible to provide complete compatibility. *Summary* A script will convert from old (breakable) unls to new unls. We all should test the PR for several weeks once it becomes part of devel. 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/CAMF8tS0U7xMHAVs%2B9eH5Ntad%3DFk_uQAy93b3U%2BLMhvx9k%3DaWFw%40mail.gmail.com.
