On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 8:22 AM, Edward K. Ream <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
No no no, I'm not providing 'stop energy' but 'tough love'. Stop energy is when people resist MY ideas. :-] Fascinating stuff. I think there are 2 ways to partition/chunk/structure code/data: - the one determined by the specs of the language/domain - the one that matches my cognitive style I think the 2nd is so personal that the benefits of sharing pale next to the complications it spawns. Edward is the visionary here, and maybe, if this problem is solved it will break ground in communication, it won't happen quickly or easily. I know that when I look at core Leo files in their @thin form, the additional nodes don't help me read the code. One of Python's features is the indentation requirements, I look at code accordingly, the block structure is the first thing the file tells me about itself. For me, the addition of named nodes is not helpful, and I don't really want it to be: I don't want to become dependent on structural sugar to read the code. I don't want to end up with code which has readability issues if not view through Leo. So my whinging tries to be done in the spirit of directing energy towards addressing the experience of Leo the most users will encounter the most. Syncing structure is not high on the list. Correction: high on _my_ list. :-] > 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. > > -- 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.
