On Jun 28, 3:34 am, "Stefan on GMail" <[email protected]> wrote:
> But we can't just declare leo as the measure of all things and ignore > arguments like "what if every developer's favorite editor put additional > structural information in the code" . You may get problems to find the > actual code. I can't let such arguments pass without derision. I'm talking about your interlocutors, not you :-) They pretend to be thorough or clever; in fact, they are the purest form of "stop" energy. They assume problems that do not exist, and ignore straightforward solutions to the "problems" should they ever arise. Let us suppose that there are two editors, like Leo, that put "significant" comments into sources. To be a problem, the comments must be different. Right away, one has to ask, why would somebody duplicate the *years* that Leo has invested in creating sentinels, and role their own? That is, standardization of such comments might be real possibility. The more that other editors want to insert such comments, the more likely standards become. But let us take the argument at its face. Suppose there were two sets of "conflicting" sentinels in use. It would be dead easy for Leo to filter out "foreign" sentinels. Ditto for any other editor. This arguments implies that multiple sets of sentinels are being inserted into external files, and yet: A. Nobody is actually getting the benefit of those sentinels, and B. No tools will ever exist to filter out such sentinels. 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
