On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 11:14 PM, TL<[email protected]> wrote: > Its clear that problems can arise if a Leo file has a cloned node in > multiple @thin files and one or more of those @thin files are being > edited in an external editor including another Leo file. However, > many Leo users are working on "one man" projects where they are the > only person editing the @thin files and they only edit them using that > Leo file. In that case, I don't see a problem using clones across > @thin files.
Yeah, but e.g. Leo development requires a degree of coordination among different contributors, and it's not clear everyone wants to commit the same change to 2 places. Current system seems to work, but I'm not sure how well it works - it leaves me with a certain unease. Clones are not on equal standing - if you read the clone from file A and file B, and it leaves the clone contents as they are in file B when the whole document is read, it means file B is the "primary" source of the clone and file A (and any other clones to it) secondary. So perhaps we should store a set primary clones and their associated root nodes somewhere, and use that info to detect potentially bad situations (leo-lint command?). It would - Scan the tree - Note that there is a non-primary clone in @thin foo.py, whose primary clone is on "unstructured" tree @thin notes.txt. It could warn about that, and suggest reordering to gain a "safe" structure -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
