Christopher Browne wrote:
> A thought, open for debate...
> 
> The node numbers are visible, and a bit painful to work with, in that
> they are inherently a bit "numerically cryptic."
> 
> It would seem an attractive idea to extend nodes to have a node name.
> Thus, we might extend sl_node thus:

Would it be more straightforward to just change the node ID from being 
an integer to being a varchar?  In concept at least, not sure about the 
effort required.

Regards and best wishes,

Justin Clift