On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Ville M. Vainio <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 8/25/09, John Hutchinson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Right now I keep only the "foo.leo" file under version control, and > > delete all the derived files that make up my project periodically. So > > a clean instance of my project is just "foo.leo", then when I write > > the missing @file nodes, I get "f1.tex", "f2.py", "f3.tex" and so on > > -- all the individual files that are needed. So in this model, the > > ".tex", ".py" etc. files are simply intermediate files (like ".pyc" > > etc.) that are not essential to preserving my work. > > Is this a feature, or a useful bug? It is/was intended. @thin nodes are named that way because @file nodes are "fat": there is a mirror in the .leo file. Iirc, sentinels in files derived from @file are not sufficient to fully describe the outline structure. You could call this an historical "accident", but the idea was to reduce the impact of sentinels. If I were to do it all over again, I would certainly have just used the @thin way. Do @file nodes really store a "mirror" of the content in the .leo file? They certainly do. At one time, I thought this was the only way of ensuring robust reads. @thin proves otherwise, but I didn't know that then. There are notes about this long process in the history chapter. > Clearly if you make this change, and @file goes away, my world does > > not end. However there is something attractive and satisfying to me of > > having all the small files of various types which make up a project > > bundled together in one source file (the ".leo" file) that I can then > > treat as a single entity for archiving, copying, backing-up etc. > > without worrying about keeping track of all the individual sub-files. > > Would it be ok to switch to a workflow where you converted all the > @thin nodes to @@thin nodes for archival purposes (so that they will > be stored in the .leo file), and convert them back to @thin nodes when > you actually want to write them? This could be done by a few > @buttons/commands, and would be in a bit more solid foundation than > using @file. > > Alternatively, you could use @nosent and convert to @thin if you want > to "read back" the file. Reasonable. I truly would like to get rid of "fat" @file nodes, and perhaps something like this will allow that to happen. But I want to give people time to for more comments about this. 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
