#3429 <https://github.com/leo-editor/leo-editor/issues/3429> suggests that Leo's paste-node command should retain gnxs if doing so would create no gnx clashes in the pasted node.
Thomas, Félix and I have been debating what *anyGnxClashes *should check. Should it check the entire pasted tree or only its root? Depending on the answer, the paste-node will act like Leo's *legacy *paste-node or paste-node-retaining-clones commands. *Aha!* The contents of the target outline don't matter! *What matters is the user's intention*. Thomas uses cut-node/pastes-node mostly to move outlines. For him, paste-node-retaining-clones is likely the best binding for ctrl-shift-v. But I typically use copy-node/paste-node to cherry-pick outlines from other branches. For me, paste-node is the best binding. *Summary* When using paste-node, the user won't know what anyGnxClashes will return. That can't be good! *Aha*: it *shouldn't matter* what nodes are in the target outline. What matters is whether the user *wants *to regain gnxs! Users who regularly use copy-node/paste to move nodes may find it best to bind ctrl-shift-v to paste-nodes-retaining-clones. Perhaps the binding for ctrl-shift-v should change in leoSettings.leo. The work on this project has not been in vain. We all now understand more deeply how Leo's paste-node commands affect gnxs. Please comment. I'll leave #3429 <https://github.com/leo-editor/leo-editor/issues/3429> open while we continue our discussion. 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/8061f9f5-b6b4-42ac-aaec-dbc89c68063en%40googlegroups.com.
