pljones wrote:Hm. So if I have a sequence part where no other part shares that sequence, then I do split, I get two sequence parts, each with a complete unique version of the original sequence (the original, in the left-hand part and the new unique copy in the right-hand part)? But if I do the same thing to a sequence part that's not using a shared sequence, I don't get the right-hand part made unique automatically?
Yes that's what i'm proposing.
I think that's inconsistent...
It depends how you look at it. You could also say it's consistent: Unique stays unique, shared stays shared.
but there are several places that are inconsistent like that already
I'd still like both ways - shared and unique - to be available on split, though.
Mmm, it's not my intention. The above proposal is a replacement for the earlier proposal to split the Split function into Split Unique and Split Shared.
Having both those funx available bloats/complicates the context menu
That way I can choose and don't have to guess/remember/check whether I still have the part shared or not (as that changes whilst I work). It would be less surprising.
Whether a part is unique or shared is clearly indicated in the part title so there would be no surprises i think. Right?