> > If so, is it acceptable to substitute "any but the last" rather than > > "first", to handle the case where there needs to be more than one importing > > @<file> branch (keeping to the rule that any given node is only in one of > > them). > > You can do anything that works :-) Keep in mind that what is actually > happening is simple: > > 1. Leo reads the .leo file first, then all @<file> nodes, in outline order. > > 2. Given point 1, the last clone that Leo reads "wins". > > Edward
My first impression was to suggest that an explicit step-- resolve_clones -- might help everyone. But this might be end up too complicated and have greater potential to break the file reading code Instead, would it be possible to put all re-written nodes by a later clone in their original form in a special part of the outline tree ? and then anyone so motivated could write code to resolve as they see fit or handle/move them by hand. To make this work, the special nodes would need probably extra attribute information such as file source, dates, and a link to the 'master' clone (last one read in). Pardon if this idea has already been vetted and shot down in the clone wars, or is already is basically in place. I recall seeing 'orphaned' nodes in leo files I have created and read back in, but I tended to ignore them (and fortunately they never came back to bite me, as far as I recall). -- 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.
