On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Kent Tenney <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I long for 'tone of voice' in this thread. :-) You were right. I was feeling a bit annoyed. But that's my problem: it shouldn't be yours. I'm feeling better now :-) If you are confused, that means many others will be confused, so the documentation needs improvement, at the very least. It is as simple as that. My present opinion (I could certainly be wrong about this) is that the code itself is reasonable, but that explaining the code is tricky. You've highlighted some potential areas of confusion that I had not considered before. It would be good to handle them. My old opinion was that relying on complex config behavior is bad style, but this is too simplistic. The complications exist for good reason, so we had best describe Leo's actual behavior before declaring some usages to be beyond the pale. Let's continue this fruitful discussion tomorrow. 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
