On Saturday, January 14, 2012 7:20:23 PM UTC+7, Edward K. Ream wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 1:45 AM, HansBKK <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Yes, some more words in the docs would be helpful, but the bottom line
> is that we can't assume that people will read documentation.  There is
> no substitute for being aware of the multiple-update problem.  I think
> it's fair to assume that programmers are aware of that problem.
>
> Edward
>

In this other related concurrent 
thread<../d/msg/leo-editor/CyqaY1HS4eY/3rhy_IPW1kMJ>you also state:

> What we are seeing is the boundary between reasonable and unreasonable 
uses of cross-file clones.  That boundary is not sharp:  whether cross-file 
clones work depend on the overall workflow of the people using them.

I would argue we should at least attempt to spell out for Leo users 
(programmers or no) what those boundaries are, even if only by giving some 
examples of ones that should be OK vs those that are clearly not. This 
would form the basis for more precise understanding growing over time, and 
perhaps more elegant ways for Leo to guide the user to avoid problems.

IMO a better solution would be some type of mechanism in Leo that allowed 
the user to specify explicitly which branch of the outline should be 
considered the canonical one. An idea you floated in one of those 
historical threads, I think along these lines, was having some sort of 
"@master" directive, which I suppose would direct Leo's read logic to "save 
this for last", no matter the position in the outline or use of @all vs 
section+others.

Another approach might be a warning (or just informational) reminder in the 
log pane whenever Leo detects a new additional potentially-problematic 
cross-file clone - IOW one that doesn't follow the safe-SOP rules specified 
in the docs.

Both of these may be too difficult/complex to implement, just tossing ideas 
out there ATM. . .


-- 
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/-/XaXQe7daZ_IJ.
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.

Reply via email to