On Aug 2, 3:26 pm, "Ville M. Vainio" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > undocumented! Past suggestions for a "Leo Cookbook" with fully > > executable examples have consistently been shot down. > > Have they? I believe the problem is, as always, the time it takes to > do such a thing. > It is always a question about budgeting time! I was voting that more time should be budgeted for developing great documentation for what may already exist. In order for a community and product to remain strong, they must grow and learn to collaborate with the rest of the world. In order for a community to grow, there must be a means for new members to come up to speed. If Leo wants to remain a sandbox for a select few - the surest way to do that is to follow in the footsteps of perl and ignore the needs of the larger community. That is why new technologies overtake old ones. Of course it does not help when the existing technology thinks it is the only game in town. > You could feel more relaxed about future of Leo if you didn't think of > it as a Python programming tool. I use Leo for all sorts of scripting development outside of python (bash, css3, jinja, sphinx documentation, etc). But I also realize that Leo is not the only game in town and I am open to tools that allow me to get the job down without hassle. Absence of documentation, or old/poor documentation is a hassle. Bernie Pursley Ellington, CT -- 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.
