>From Terry's related thread >here<https://groups.google.com/forum/#%21topic/leo-editor/4vazxXwWy8E/discussion>
>> distinction between source files and output, or built, files. I believe that is in effect what the safe-cloning rules, and the procedures they imply which we've outlined in this thread, and also here, <https://groups.google.com/forum/#%21topic/leo-editor/XaDeRQIVSyw/discussion>are doing already. @shadow/thin = input and output @nosent/asis = output only Once could say this method is relatively "explicit" IMO the other two - location in the outline on the one hand, and read order priority of @all vs <<sections>>/@others on the other - are less so. The fact that these procedures rely on the user understanding a relatively complex set of rules IMO works against data safety. Solutions based on these can easily become fragile due to human limitations, e.g. memory/brain farts; for myself, it's all too easy to forget *why* I put that branch at the bottom of my outline, and later on move it up higher by mistake. I completely understand and accept that additional mechanisms for preventing data loss due to cross-file cloning aren't likely to appear anytime soon. However in the meantime I still maintain that this is still an important usability issue which requires addressing in a more visible and permanent location. I would be happy to put some more work into summarizing the points outlined in these threads into a "next draft", and then another developer could technical-edit it and incorporate it into the official documentation. -- 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/-/F3oFSbYotJQJ. 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.
