On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:11 AM, HansBKK <[email protected]> wrote: > On Saturday, January 21, 2012 2:46:21 AM UTC+7, Differance wrote: >> >> > My second concern is with what I believe to be an unnecessarily strict >> > blanket rule >> >> >> keeping clones out of @file branches >> > >> > When the "master source" file is externally modified, my use case >> > specifically requires one (and only one) instance of the cloned nodes to >> > remain in an @ <file> branch that allows importing - @shadow in the "b" >> > case >> > above, optionally @file when "c" is allowed. >> > >> > Can that need be made to fit within your @templating scheme? >> >> It's not clear what purpose you're serving by that protocol. > > To me, the main topic - preventing data loss due to multi-file clones.
:-) I'm developing the original topic -- why Edward likes clones. >> perhaps you'd have to have separate @file source files. Maybe that's >> what you're talking about as a "master source" file. > > I have text - may be code, may be docs "fed" into Leo from external files > maintained by others which I don't alter. These are my "master source" > files, and if I understand your thinking correctly, would want to remain in > @ <file> (@file or @shadow) branches. > > I break these down into "snippets", "chunks" "objects" whatever you like, in > Leo = nodes, and select/re-order them in another set of branches, along with > my own original content. Some of these are into another set of files for > which I am the editor/author. If I understand your thinking correctly, these > would no longer be in @ <file> branches, but under a new type of @template > directive. This part I think I follow, and seems to be right. > My point is the safety-enforcement part of your scheme, in order to > accommodate my example, would need to allow the original "master source" @ > <file> branches to contain clones - but only one instance for any given > node. This I don't get. I haven't said anything about safety enforcement, first. If you're talking about clone wars, all I've said is that clearing up functions (code maintenance/having leo maintain single unitary files vs. templating) should help make things clearer for clone wars, not that it would necessarily make things safer. Why/what are you doing in your use case that calls for adding one clone to the master source @file branches? You've described the master source files, and your hybrid things which would be under @template branches. But I don't see what you're doing that you want to put clones under @file branches. > Your @template directives would need to allow for external modification > (two-way import/export) as well, so my confusion is to how this concept in > and of itself would simplify or make safer things regarding clone wars, as > the fundamental problem would IMO remain. Chiefly it would separate two different functions. But it wouldn't make things safer in and of itself. Trying to both do code maintenance and do templating in the same kind of @ branch strikes me as a recipe for confusion either in development or usage. Separating them should make it easier to conceptualize how to handle external modification if only by handling two types of external files distinctly. But what your example case I don't get, plus what you're speaking of as "the fundamental problem." If you're talking about data safety/preventing data loss due to multi-file clones I'm not clear how your example relates to that. Seth -- 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.
