On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 9:45 PM, Edward K. Ream <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I'm a bit shocked that you haven't found a glaring hole in the idea. I'm > starting to confront how good this scheme might be. For example, it looks > like @file! does not need to care whether the public or private files are > committed to bzr. As another example, the docs will no longer have to > describe the 9 (!) ways to create external files. > This is a very serious boon. I try to track the discussions here, but I can't because everything everybody says is "this would be good for @thin, but @shadow wouldn't work," "Yeah, you're right," etc. They become a shorthand that stops me from comprehension. And certainly anybody approaching Leo has got to stop short when they confront all those @ thingies. I'd pipe up more if not for this. My approach to the Leo stable of concerns is very different, but I can't relate it to your problem du jour, so I just watch and muse . . . Seth > Obviously, we can call @file! anything we want. My thinking is that the > new @file might actually be all there is, so @file would seem to be the > clearest choice. I'm not wild about @shadow, because @file! is an amalgam > of @thin, @auto, @shadow and maybe even @edit. We probably should leave the > final name for later, after all the details become clearer. > Whatever you call the @ directive, it seems your public vs. private files are really external vs. "Leo-specific". Seth --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
