> As I mentioned I have been munging together the type (ie. VALUE) > with a sort of unique identifier (ie. Constant1) to get something > like 'Constant1--VALUE' for a name. This works okay now, but I guess I > just worry how easy it will be to maintain. This is also not very > helpful to a user, since right now they only see 'Constant' as the > name of the node, and so can't tell which Constant is Constant1 and > which is Constant2. > Overflow gets around all of this by just making the user pick a > name to identify the connector which is being mapped to the parent, so > this is another choice to make things easier. This is kind of a pain, > but I don't know which way is better. What do people think? > Maybe base the naming on the manes of the nodes the link connects? So when node_A and node_B are connected, name the link by default Constant_nodeA_nodeB. bye, jarl