On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 7:20 PM, TL <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm nervous about your plans to make changes to the way that @rst works.
I understand completely. It's never wise to break existing code. My present plans are as follows: 1. Retain the present code as it is, except possibly for some internal house-cleaning. The only feature I might actually terminate is the strange ability to redefine the *spellings* of rst commands. There are some recent additions that might not make the cut either, but they should not affect you. 2. Drop the *documentation* for the so-called advanced features. 3. Add a code-to-rst command, using the present code base, to handle code formatting more cleaning. This command will be, in effect, a base class that special-purpose scripts could override to do exactly what they want. Any changes are problematic in the absence of unit tests. It would probably be good to develop some test that pass on the present code before messing around. 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.
