On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 9:28 PM, Seth Johnson <[email protected]>wrote:
> > > 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. > :-) To have finally solved this problem will free up energy and creativity for other matters. You can not possibly imagine how much thought I have given it. I now longer have to explain why not solving this problem doesn't matter ;-) This is *the* problem that prevented many people from using Leo. Whatever you call the @ directive, it seems your public vs. private files > are really external vs. "Leo-specific". > Good point. The terminology must change for users. Internally (in the code) the private/public terminology was an important organizer, much clearer that the previous clumsy terminology (with and without sentinels). It's not so important to change the code-level terminology. 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
