I agree that Leo is hard to characterize. It's an editor, it's an organizational tool, it's a document generator and code generator (of sorts). One might take a "use case" approach showing how to (1) generate a pdf using the rst facilities, (2) how one writes code with it, e.g., construct a simple program with some cloned nodes to generate a version of the program with some debug statements in one method, (3) exhibit how one uses Leo to do some of the other things people do with it. I like examples and work by analogy more effectively than by reading more abstract descriptions of nodes and the internal machinery. There is a place for those more complete details of Leo's facilities and how it works, but seeing it in action is my first preference until I recognize the need for those details.
Regards, DLH On Aug 4, 7:23 pm, Terry Brown <[email protected]> wrote: > The Django docs seem very good to me,http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/1.2/ > > I think part of the challenge in documenting Leo is that it's hard to define > exactly what Leo is, it's different things at different times to different > people. But Django is also multi-faceted and seems to handle the complexity > well enough in the docs. I don't know how their docs. are maintained in > terms of keeping in sync. with the code, might be worth seeing what their > system is. > > Cheers -Terry -- 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.
