On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 3:27 AM, zpcspm <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jun 15, 9:49 pm, Terry Brown <[email protected]> wrote: >> Not really sure what the next step is. I think you, zpcspm, and I are of >> the same opinion, but Edward >> differs. Does this mean... options? Arghh, the horror! :) > > My requirement is lighter and I can live with the current state of > things. > Yes, I have complained earlier about a similar pattern. > But I mostly encounter it when dealing with legacy code (which is not > my own).
Right. My impression is good style dictates putting declarations at the top, followed by defs, as Leo expects currently. The use case which prompted my post involved experiments with triple quoted blocks inline for testing and documentation. This doesn't look like a good idea, so I'm not wed to the splitting issue, but interested enough for a bit more discussion. > I import this code into leo using @shadow. Then what? Do you make nodes for the comments, assignments etc which are between defs? ie: do you manually do what we are considering asking Leo to do? > > I short: I think it would be nice if users would have a custom option > to control the logic of code splitting, but this has implications (at > least more complexity of the importing code). I understand this is a > clear situation when the best can become an enemy of the good. In Edward's contrived file which would be cluttered with too many nodes, under the current scheme, lots of code would be hidden in def nodes. I tend to prefer the surfeit of nodes, which says to me "please organize your code a bit better" instead of the current approach which says "I'm playing hide the code with you" :-] Regarding options, I'm curious about how file splitting is defined. If splitting were defined by some kind of template or rule set which wasn't too complex, the user could choose between. I've wondered about this when I encounter structured files which I wish Leo could split for me, or I could easily specify splitting requirements. Thanks, Kent > > > -- > 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. > > -- 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.
