On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 10:43 PM, TL<[email protected]> wrote: > Why not provide support for the @ignore directive in @thin nodes by > writing the node's body text and the body text of its sub-nodes out to > the file as commented lines. The logic for commenting out lines is > already implemented in part to support the @doc directive?
This would mess with handling (reading) of @others in thin trees, I imagine. I.e. even if it flies as theoretical concept, it would complicate the code somewhat. As a user level concept this is quite good, but it would mess with thin parsing somewhat (now, it would need to scan for sentinels also in commented out code and emit trees accordingly). > body text. As a result, there is no indication in the outline that > the node is being "ignored" and there is no support for having the sub- > nodes also ignored when their parent node is "ignored". Yes, I can Handiest way to ignore code in entire trees would be to use a multiline comment structure above and below the bad tree. Actually, I don't know how to do this in python in content-agnostc fashion (withot changing indentation). """ and ''' are problematic because they may exist in embedded code, and "if 0:" will change indentation. For C and likes this is easy: #if 0 + #endif If you happen to hack C, you could have a @button that created such nodes above and below your "unwanted" tree. Don't get me wrong, enabling and disabling full trees in one swoop *is* a cool feature, but IMHO optimal implementation should keep complexity in control. -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
