Hi Terry, On 2 Mrz., 17:39, Terry Brown <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 20:12:11 -0600 > "Edward K. Ream" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Terry Brown <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > One thing I would suggest is integrating the documentation so that it's > > > pulled from the docstring for the module. > > > An excellent idea. It should be relatively easy to do with a script. > > http://www.greygreen.org/tmp/plugins.html is what I have so far, trying > to work out how to add table of contents to an rst doctree (the python > representation of an rst doc.). Then extract summary and status info. > > > > It's probably to much to ask that plugins are able to test themselves. > > > > > This is not at all an outlandish idea. Of course, anyone is free to > > develop their own private plugins, but it's not unreasonable to > > require that every plugin that appears in LeoPluginsRef.leo should > > pass its own module-level test() method. > > I'm afraid I'd have to say it's not outlandish or unreasonable, but possibly > unrealistic. Anyway I think the first step is to complete the cataloging > process I seem to have started (doh!:-) and get some idea of overall status > of everything.
>From a first read of your proposal in "docstring elements for plugins" and the additonal link that you provided here, I think you are already addressing a lot of the issues/ topics that I had asked for. - I do think that a sub- and possibly super-set of what you proposed will make plugins at a lot more self-explaining to Leo-Users. With kind regards, Viktor -- 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.
