On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 12:57 AM, Matt Wilkie <[email protected]> wrote: >> Anyone else have some opinions about this? To repeat, it's easy to change >> this. > > Long lines and word wrap puts show/hide of sentinel squarely in the > control of the user whereas a short line leaves no choice. There > appears to be no realistic path available, at present, to have Leo be > a divine presence, able to act in the world unseen. So, even though I > usually have word wrap on by default in vim etc. I would keep the > padded sentinels.
Thanks for this encouragement. In this instance, however, I think that the stop energy is going to prevail. Although the individual complaints seem minor, I never like to do two steps forward and one step back. The only affected code is at.nodeSentinelText. As of rev 3134 the code that puts gnx's to the right has been disabled. Happily, in the new sentinels scheme new thin files will have significantly fewer sentinels than old thin files. Indeed, all @nonl, @nl , @-doc, @-at and (most importantly) @-node sentinels will disappear. True, there will be new @-<< sentinels, but the total sentinel count will never increase because each @-<< sentinel will replace at least one @-node sentinel. I shall now begin work on the difficult part, namely getting Leo to read the new sentinels reliably. > (...and it would still be possible to work on further suppression with > muted syntax highlight rules if desired.) An interesting idea. It might apply to gnx's in the traditional location in @+-node 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.
