On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 7:56 AM, Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas > But testing all this other environments (including TeXmacs instead of > Mathematica) gives me ideas about how the experience of using Leo could be: > > * From Geany: Having a minimal included shell emulator inside the > environment for unix users could improve the . Opening files and making > other actions from the shell and having the output integrated on Leo when > makes sense. For example if I made leo -child somefile.any it will open a > new node with that file imported as a child of the present one. This is just > a possibility but what I want is a better integration with the shell > knowledge of the user, like Geany does.
Interesting idea, because it is open-ended in nature. > * From Pida: Talking with the external world in terms of plugins providing > functionality: When pida first starts it [lets] you choose your preferred > editor: emacs, vi, or mooedit. > The way that new plugins are handled is easy, > you get a list of them in a new frame (not a new window), if you click > on one you get a detailed description and the option to install them. Rewriting the plugins manager is on the list. It should happen sooner rather than later. > I imagine a world where Leo offers outline services to a lot of > apps. I think the vim and xemacs plugins do fairly well with this already. > * From Mathematica/TeXmacs: Rich interactive documentation. I agree completely. The problem is that I don't have a good picture of how the user interaction will work. > Apps like reinteract are trying to have something like this made in Python > and I think that the rst-preview plugin is a proto-experiment in this > context, but we will need real time updating. I agree. But to repeat, I don't think technical issues are the problem: the problem is the design of the screen. > I like also about TeXmacs that the first time you open > it, it brings you an introductory document for newbies made on TeXmacs, This is becoming the standard way of greeting newbies. Emacs, XEmacs and Eclipse do something similar. Leo's workbook (the .leo file that gets opened if no other outline is specified) would be a good place to put this introductory material. Once again though, I don't have a clear picture of what would actually be shown. > Another good ideas of Mathematica/TeXmacs are > under the hood, for example in the structure of documents (all is an > expression, but I think that Leo is closer in that sense with this ideas > with its DAG structure). Mathematica documents are completely self contained: everything is in the .nb or .nbp file: Mathematica does not connect to what we call external files. This makes the structure of Mathematica notebooks much simpler than .leo files. Ironically, it would be much *easier* for Mathematical to implement clones, but they have not done it. Many thanks for these comments. Now is a good time to think as deeply as we can about the issues you raise. I have a nagging sense that it should be easier to make rich text in Leo, but I have never been able to make a clear picture of how to go forward. As I see it, Leo is still oriented towards plain text *everywhere* (that is, in every node). Nodes like @html and @movie are pretty much after-thoughts. Furthermore, even in such nodes the "real" content is just text: the rendering is simply a different view of the text. uA's (or other attributes) provide a natural way of associating a type with any node. Perhaps we just need a wysiwyg editor for rich text for some nodes... 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.
