Thanks Marco and others for pointing these problems out.

So I have another suggestion. Not to implement extend stop, equate, but add the possibility of 3 stations in extend ignore. I.e.

extend ignore <s1> <s2> <s3>

would mean, do not go to s3 if you came to s2 from s1. In your case Tarquin, specifying

extend ignore 8 7 11
extend ignore 6 7 12

should save the situation. Am I still missing something?

S.

On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 at 23:15, Stacho Mudrak <stacho.mudrak@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks Marco, Tarquin for pointing this out.

So I have another suggestion. Not to implement extend stop, but add the possibility of 3 stations in extend ignore.

extend ignore <s1> <s2> <s3>

would mean, do not go to s3 if you came to s2 from s1. In your case Tarquin, specifying

extend ignore 8 7 11
extend ignore 6 7 12

should save the situation. Am I missing something?

S.

On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 at 22:40, Tarquin Wilton-Jones via Therion <therion@speleo.sk> wrote:
> Something important I had not considered.  I wonder what it does to tarquin's example.

I don't even begin to know how to cope with the situation where there is
a separate branch from 7 to 12 in my example, where you want
2-10-9-8-7-12 to be shown as one branch in the extended elevation, and
1-2-3-4-5-6-7-11 in the other branch, with two station 7s.

At that point, I think the only way to cope with it is to say:

7 7a 0 0 0
7a 8 1 2 3
...
7a 12 1 2 3
extend ignore 7-7a

Manipulate the data to add an extra station, allowing a break.

I also don't think this discussion of "extend stop 8 7" can cope with it
either.

I sense a large spanner in the works...


Tarquin
_______________________________________________
Therion mailing list
Therion@speleo.sk
https://mailman.speleo.sk/listinfo/therion