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