On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 8:13 AM, Edward K. Ream <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 7:32 PM, Lucas Thode <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> What do you do about nodes and structure that is shared among multiple >> @thin trees in that scenario? Also, what about things that should be kept >> with the code, but are not part of the code itself? (Leo's clones provide a >> nice facility for associating code and high-level documentation such as >> business requirements.) >> > > I have often said that at most one @thin tree should be responsible for > each clone. For example, in leoPy.leo, the actual source files "own" (not > an official term) each node, while almost all clones end up in @thin > leoProjects.txt. This file uses @all to allow clones to be included without > regard to whether, for example, section definition nodes are actually > referenced. > > I think of this as not so much a technical issue, but a management issue. > Just as two human managers are unlikely to agree to shared responsibility > for a piece of code, so too it is likely to be unwise to have two source > files share cloned nodes. I consider it bad (management) style. YMMV. > > Edward > > > These shared clone nodes are just boilerplate, really. So, it's not a big deal in this case; for actual code, I agree with you. --Lucas --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
