On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 9:47 AM, Geoffrey Hutchison
wrote:
>> is much nicer than how we did it before, and it seems like it would be
>> simple to add to CJSON.
>
> I think it's a good idea to add selection to CJSON for a few reasons. One,
> the concept of "named
> is much nicer than how we did it before, and it seems like it would be
> simple to add to CJSON.
I think it's a good idea to add selection to CJSON for a few reasons. One, the
concept of "named selections" was in Avo1 but never really used. For example,
an enhanced QM (or other) generator