On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 7:54 PM, Terry Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
> This is exactly the kind of conflict (between plugins :-) we've been > discussing, and I still don't see how act-on-node would help. How is > active_path supposed to know the user wants active_path to step aside > in favor of open_with? Well, it never should IMO. A context-sensitive action (active_path) should always take precedence over a plugin applicable to all nodes (open_with). > If active_path and open_with both published commands to do what they > do, TL could bind them to whatever he wanted, open_with on double-click > and active_path on alt-click or ctrl-space, or whatever. Nothing is preveting from still doing it. act-on-node won't prevent anything (unless that's the sole interface a plugin provides). > This also sidesteps the problem that TL wants increased granularity in > active_path's view of nodes it understands. I.e. a "do what you do to > this node, *unless* it's a file node" action, as well as it's existing > "do what you do to this node" action. Providing this kind of granularity is what act-on-node easily provides. I do think act-on-node is a very bad fit for open-with plugin, event though I still disagree about active_path ;-) -- Ville M. Vainio http://tinyurl.com/vainio --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
