On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 06:31:37AM -0700, Edward K. Ream wrote:
It appears that Leo will, relatively soon, move to the unified-node world.
Compatibility with existing code and scripts should be no big deal.
Indeed, unified nodes will contain .v and .t ivars, inited in the ctor
as follows:
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 5:23 PM, Terry Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
find-next-clone is what I'm talking about, how's that done?
Just like it has always been done. That is, p = c.currentPosition() is a
(new) position. We traverse the tree, starting from p, looking for the next
position p2
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 3:17 AM, derwisch
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 13, 3:31 pm, Edward K. Ream [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That is for any node n, n.v == n, n.t == n, n.v.t == n. In other
words, if there is only one kind of node, the problem of
distinguishing between vnodes and
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 8:09 AM, Edward K. Ream [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that's about it for now. It truly is thrilling to be able to
simplify and generalize this fundamental code.
Naturally, the first thing I did was merge the tnode and vnode ctors into
the node ctor. It was fun:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 8:19 AM, Edward K. Ream [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nodes will have an .unknownAttributes ivar. But since there is only one
kind of node, there can only be one kind of .unknownAttributes ivar.
It might be possible to associate permanent data with positions. My guess
is
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 1:01 AM, Kayvan A. Sylvan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 06:31:37AM -0700, Edward K. Ream wrote:
It appears that Leo will, relatively soon, move to the unified-node
world.
Compatibility with existing code and scripts should be no big deal.
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 10:04:30 -0500
Edward K. Ream [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the way to retain the context distinctions you get from
vnodes will be through position dependent rendering of nodes. You
might need to inspect p.stack to work out the context the node is
displayed in. I
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 9:48 AM, Terry Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
This is great. I was never really a fan of the previous great graph
aha that graphs could be represented in trees, anything can be
represented in trees, or strings, or base64, after all. But now more
complex relationships
On Apr 13, 7:20 am, Edward K. Ream [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It appears that Leo will, relatively soon, move to the unified-node world.
Compatibility with existing code and scripts should be no big deal.
Indeed, unified nodes will contain .v and .t ivars, inited in the ctor
as follows:
self.v
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 05:20:54 -0700 (PDT)
Edward K. Ream [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Unified nodes are *precisely* the nodes contemplated in the graph
world.
/me grins
Recall that a key part in my rejection of the graph world
was a realization that iterators in any graph world are much more
10 matches
Mail list logo
