On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 7:39 AM, Edward K. Ream <[email protected]> wrote: > On Feb 22, 7:16 am, "Edward K. Ream" <[email protected]> wrote: > > I forgot to ask for your comments about the entire post. I would > welcome any ideas you might have for how to build more interactivity > into Leo.
I'd guess everyone has a different idea what 'interactivity' means. Bret's demo is _probably_ a case of tailoring a nail to match his hammer. My tendency is to gather tools and materials which inform what I build, as apposed to visualizing a destination, figuring out a route. So I consider Leo to be a language or platform, its mandate is to make more things easier to do, the easier it is to do something, the more people will do it, the more energy is available to do the _next_ thing. So, I harp on ease of event hooking, ease of key assignment, ease of command definition ... as the barrier to customization keeps becoming lower, more inventions will appear. I think Leo has a head start in all of these things. It sounds like your recent work has resulted in a lot of simplification, making 'core' Leo more accessible to more of us. As far as big ideas, maybe an inter-process layer: hide the complexity of pushing and pulling from other applications. Thanks, Kent > >> At the bare minimum, it would be good to have Leo run unit tests any time >> the associated code changes. Leo can do this, given a smallish amount of >> new infrastructure. > > We don't want to run unit tests on every keystroke because most of the > time the text will not be syntactically correct. > > It would, however, be possible to run the test when the body pane *is* > syntactically correct, but I have my doubts about whether this would > be desirable. Another idea is to extend the run-selected-unit-tests- > locally command so that it looks for a clone of the selected node that > is a direct child of an @itest node. > > Experiments would show which approach is most convenient in practice. > > Edward > > P.S. Running unit tests locally might work *better* in the @itest > world because the *present* body text of the code under test is > available to the unit test. We had best be careful: we don't want to > hot-change Leo by running unit tests locally! I'll have to give this > puzzle some more thought... > > EKR > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
