Some updates on the work flow. I have been moving between Leo and Emacs and 
I am quite happy with the results, although there are some glitches too.

I am now using Leo as the project manager and the primary source code 
editor to write new code and/or refactor existing code. I had some third 
party software that I wanted to prune down the features and use on a 
server.  Some files should be copied from the original, some files are 
majorly pruned to cut down references to unused features and remain as 
skeletons just to keep things happy and a few needed to be rewritten to fit 
the server side. It is pretty simple to keep a separate list of each and 
manage copying, updating etc all from within Leo. I can probably do the 
same if I had enough sophistication with version control software, but I 
suspect that I suffered much less frustration by using Leo (and 
shutil.copy2) to manage the flow. It is a powerful combo to document meta 
information: source code management info and script, reasons for doing 
things, alternatives that failed or should be tried etc, all in the same 
outline with the code base, knowing that I will have a much easier time if 
in the future I need to revisit the code and choices made.

For code completion Codewise was kind of disappointing. Maybe it is 
something about how my tags are set up. I can see why it is not turned on 
as default. I am sure it is great (indispensable) if I want to hack Leo. 
For now I am just surviving on dabbrev, which thankfully fits the need well 
enough.

I also recently learned about the Emacs Occur mode. If any Emacs user here 
hasn't tried it you've got to give it a try. Do M-X occur, for Python code 
then give it the pattern "def \|class " (note the space after def and class 
keywords) and you get an Occur mode window that is eerily similar to Leo! 
You can navigate around your source code window by clicking on the 
highlighted links in the Occur mode window. This definitely fits well with 
one's use pattern of Leo.

Switching between two editors definitely has its own risks. I thought I was 
careful but still there were one or two things that slipped through. Bugs I 
must have fixed -- since my REPL session was happy -- but only in my Emacs, 
were then stomped by my Leo editing session. I was probably keeping the 
same REPL session for too long, only incrementally evaling new codes as 
they were created or fixed. A restart quickly showed that mistakes were 
made, thankfully all easy to fix. I should probably also give 
(global-auto-revert-mode 
t) a try.

*It is probably not too hard to create an Emacs mode for Leo? With Leo's 
core outlining and Python scripting capability integrated with Emacs power 
in basic editing and countless modes. One can always dream, right?*

On Monday, October 1, 2012 3:50:05 PM UTC-7, F.S. wrote:
>
> As I learn more about Leo my approach will surely evolve along with Leo.
>

-- 
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/-/awl88Bnn8IUJ.
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