On Saturday, January 14, 2012 5:27:36 AM UTC+7, Matt Wilkie wrote:
>
> > P.S. In your particular situation, I would suggest, if at all possible,
> that you make complete external files, rather than clones, to be the "units
> of sharing". That way there is only one copy of the data, so if you change
> that data outside of Leo all clones of (parts of) that data will be in
> synch the next time you open Leo.
>
> Oh.
>
> I thought one of the major reasons for clones was to be able to
> "boiler plate" common content across many files. Examples might
> include copyright notices, written by _____, code functions that get
> re-used a lot and so on.
>
> Is this an incorrect, or at least inadvisable, use of clones?
>
I honestly think the lack of a clear statement on this topic in the docs is
dangerous for relative newcomers to Leo and threatens its acceptance as a
data-safe working environment.
I would **really** like for us to work together here to create a starting
point for documenting this issue, so I've compiled a summary from my past
notes as a general starting point
Note that all the below statements are based on my limited knowledge and my
reading of some rather old threads, those with more knowledge **please** do
correct any inaccuracies. Note also these statements should be taken to
apply to recent versions of Leo only, and I've ordered them by
simplicity/safety/my certainty:
--------------------
It's safe to allow clones to appear in multiple @ <file> branches as long
as you make sure that one of the following is true
- you are doing all your editing within Leo
- you make sure that any given clone only appears in one @ <file> that
imports (reads) changes made outside Leo
- note my SOP to ensure this is to
- use a designated "master" @thin or @shadow file to bring in any
external changes
- all the other clone instances are @nosent or @asis, therefore
export only (and treated as read-only outside Leo)
- you take into account the relative priority guidelines outlined by Ed
- @all vs (sections+@others)
- have the (only one) "master location" use sections+@others, the
other instances must use @all
- position in the outline
- last @ <file> read (= lower in the outline) wins - you will get
"Recovered nodes" showing the conflict/differences
- in-Leo-only clones (not included in an @ <file> ) will always lose
to imported changes
--------------------
I'm pretty sure there isn't a safe way to clone the @ <file> node itself to
different paths
Including a given clone multiple times within a single @ <file> tree is
fine, but it only actually gets written more than once when using
<<sections>>, not via multiple @others.
--------------------
References:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/leo-editor/j7BOnRqCFcI/tyE_SvNwfHMJ
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/leo-editor/Z6KJhGFtCck/discussion
Pretty old, not sure how much still applies probably best to *not* revive
these zombies but continue the discussion here, using the above summary as
a starting point:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/leo-editor/-DFuSJwHP2E/discussion
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/leo-editor/wulhmob-Ne4/k_lyAWIQPLQJ
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"leo-editor" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/leo-editor/-/dx5rsOwQ1L8J.
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.
