On Tue, 16 Mar 1999 13:30:39 +0100 (MET), Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen wrote:
>> > We will allow more nesting with a HeadingInset with a counter, than with
>> > position in a tree: We can only nest to the number of different
>> > pointers to Insets we have, and this is typically smaller than the range
>> > of an integer.
>>
>> ??? I don't understand. A tree is defacto unlimited in size.
>> The number of pointers is almost always limited the same way as integers
>> are.
>
>[This is just a nit-pick discussion. It's purely academic.]
>Since pointers have to be aligned to certain boundaries, the
>range of valid pointers to insets is typically lower than the
>range of valid integers.
>Therefor, in the case of unlimited memory, but bounded pointers
>and integers, we will allow more nesting with integers.
>Of course, nobody will want to nest headings 2^31 times. ;-)
>
>> No, of course not. It gets automagically promoted/demoted to the
>> appropriate level at the place of insertion. You just pluck a branch off
>> the tree and put it back at another position. The relative structure
>> within the branch remains the same - even while being in the clipboard.
>
>This will be confusing for the user. When you copy/paste something,
>you expect it to be a verbatim copy. That's why it's called "copy" ;-)
>
>A "logical" paste like you describe could be fun in some situations,
>but in general, i think we want the other one.
>
>(Notice also that the logical paste is simple to do with the counter
>as well: Just add a constant according to the hosting headings counter.)
>
>> I agree that HeadingInsets with numbers are not that bad at all.
>
>Ok, I think we have settled this issue then:
>Headings are not nested in a tree. Instead, we will use counters to
>represent the nesting information.
One question here:
As far as I remember it were Jean-Marc and Allan, who asked me a while ago to
provide a .sty file for alfanumeric.layout. I responded: I do not think this is
really needed. The original alphanumeric.sty of CTAN may be preferable. And
what I wanted to stress at that moment was:
Sectioning and toc levels are defined there only in relation to the preceding
one. Same level, one level down, one or several levels up. The advantage here
is: You can cut and paste, move around add or remove levels up to a maximum of
12. The interior logic of those parts will always remain intact and you will
never have with re-leveling everything.
Is this possible with your scheme?
Arnd
