On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Edward K. Ream <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Mwahahahaahhaha - the load code already supports <t/> elements just to carry >> uAs on all of file, auto, shadow, thin, and edit. I just edited the .leo >> file and duplicated the one <t/> element (from the @file node) for the >> thin/edit/shadow and auto nodes, changing the @tx to match their @ts. And >> it worked. So if only a uA carrying <t/> could be written for those types... > > Thanks for this detective work. These are good hints. I don't > understand the implications just yet. Let me see why test.leo works > the way it does. The relevant code is as follows: Reading: getSaxUa. Writing: putVnode and putTnode. There is code in putVnode that inhibits writing descendant uA's in @auto trees. I believe this is correct. A similar special case should probably also inhibit writing to descendants in @edit trees. Nobody has complained probably because nobody creates descendant nodes in @edit trees. The code in putTnode writes uA's for *all* nodes, which is also correct because Leo only writes <t> elements for the top-level nodes of @thin, @edit and @auto trees. In short, I think the code is correct, except possibly that the special case for @auto trees in putVnode should also apply to @edit trees. 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.
