My comment was only in regards to the _name_ of the directive, using @file to indicate the features you are describing. The directive previously known as @file could become something like @file-sent.
If it makes sense for @shadow behaviour to be default entry level then I think spelling it @file might have benefits worth the pain. Much simpler, expected, more intuitive for a newcomer. On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 1:02 PM, Edward K. Ream <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 11:44 AM, Kent Tenney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > At last, after several days, I understand what you are saying. Kent, >> > it's truly remarkable how often this happens :-) >> >> Thanks, Edward, that means a lot. > > You are welcome. Your friendship means a lot to me. >> >> While riding that wave, I'll propose another controversy, >> renaming @auto-shadow as @file, making slurped the default. >> >> Again, I picture a prospective Leo user beginning with the question:: >> >> What will Leo do to my files?, what are the consequences of associating >> one of my files with a Leo node? >> >> I think the answer should be, Leo does _nothing_ to my file, doesn't opine >> on how it should be displayed, doesn't inject sentinels, nothing. It >> just provides rich scripting/organizing capability. OK, it creates .leo >> directories, >> like bzr or svn, that's ok. >> >> Once hooked, the user can investigate the iceberg below, and all the other >> directives, such as the @file-sent (previously @file) > > Huh? Here we go again :-) > > @shadow (aka @auto-shadow or whatever) does indeed guarantee that Leo does > nothing with user's files, regardless of the chunking. The public files, > the files that presumably matter to the user, will have no sentinels > *regardless* of how the user represents the file in the outline. Only the > files in the Leo-shadow directory (what you call the .leo directory) will > have sentinels. That's the genius of @shadow. So the details about how > @shadow represents private files don't matter much (but see below.) > > As you say, later, if the user wants, and her colleagues agree, the user can > change @shadow to @file or @thin or whatever. But in the meantime, @shadow > gives her exactly what you are describing. > > Are we agreed so far? > > However, there is something cute that can happen behind the scenes that I > have been mulling for a few days: @shadow could write private files with > @thin sentinels, and yet save all the information in the outline just as if > it were reading @file node. The advantages: > > 1. The @thin-format private files could actually be committed to a > repository, say Leo's own trunk. This allows a project to *agree* on the > recommended outline format. This requires that public and private files be > committed in synch, so perhaps it is not preferable to @thin. Still, it > might work. > > 2. Having @shadow save everything in the outline a la @file solves some of > the problems with @thin, namely the difficulties of saving attributes to > vnodes. > > But to repeat the main point, @shadow should give users, especially those > tiptoeing around Leo, all the advantages you describe: full access to all of > Leo's features, without sentinels in public files and without requiring any > particular commitments to any outline organization. > > Edward > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
