On Sat, Jul 8, 2023 at 6:53 AM Thomas Passin <[email protected]> wrote:
> No, I haven't tried it. I'm not even sure I would want to. > I've asked several times, why not? Think about how the Windows file explorer works. If you copy a file and > paste it, it gives the pasted file a name that includes "copy" if there is > another file with that name in the same directory. > It's an interesting analogy but misleading. A Leo node is more like a directory than a file. Subnodes matter in this discussion. The question is whether pastes should retain *all* gnxs or none of them. Yes, Leo could copy a tree depending on whether clashes exist. But it's our intention that matters, not gnx clashes. That was the Aha. Leo's paste-node and paste-retaining-clones commands support either intention. That should be enough. *Summary* It's easy to reject the proposal. It's unlikely to work as expected. Leo's existing commands suffice. 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/CAMF8tS2g%2B6szSM3sP281KGX_7_Xq87TcVs-P2jgcVMEyNNSDCQ%40mail.gmail.com.
