I'm starting to learn more about RGAs and CRDTs in general, so I'm not sure if this makes sense, but when you say replacing the sequence number for the "right parent" (`originRight` in your code?), so you mean replacing the Lamport timestamp for the node/operation with a pointer to the element adjacent to the right, correct? One alternative way to approach it that comes to mind is to introduce transaction semantics so that you can consider a node to be identified by a [Lamport timestamp, site ID, transaction sequence] and the parent, and use a sequence number within the transaction to sort, but it seems like it would add additional data and complexity compared to the "right parent" approach, so it might not be ideal, and may fall victim to the same downside as the original RGA.
> so you mean replacing the Lamport timestamp for the node/operation with a pointer to the element adjacent to the right, correct?
Yeah thats right. Its a GUID, because they need to be sent over the wire. For text editing, we usually use {site ID, transaction sequence} because they compress better than random IDs.
> One alternative way to approach it that comes to mind is to introduce transaction semantics so that you can consider a node to be identified by a [Lamport timestamp, site ID, transaction sequence] and the parent, and use a sequence number within the transaction to sort, ...
Maybe? I don't fully understand what you mean. And even if I did, I'm not clever enough to infer all the implications of that construction. But yes, I suspect you're right that in the best case, it would be equivalent to fuguemax. And in the worst case, it would introduce new bugs.
