On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Craig Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:
It seems that more that the literate name was dumped. > > Support for code parts and Doc parts is also disappearing from Leo and > it's documentation among other bits of LP that have already gone. > True, the documentation is gone, on purpose. But the code and functionality remains, now and for the foreseeable future. The reason for removing the LP-related docs was to simplify the documentation for newbies. I suppose we could put some more info in an appendix, but really, nobody is ever going to read it :-) Another reason for removing those particular features, @root, etc., is that I never use them and they are, imo, bad style. Remember that Knuth invented CWEB ca. 1980, before there were such things as classes! (Or Python). In the modern world, the need for "augmented sections" does not exist. Even more so with Leo and it's clones. > ** ** > > I quite like the concept of embedding the documentation inside the code, > however, it seems that I can’t do that with Leo anymore. > You can still use @...@c anywhere. There have also been discussions about better support for intertwining code and data in the rst3 command. I sympathize with the desire, but the rst3 command is already way too complicated... > I’m an advocate of write-what-you-code then code-what-you-wrote. Rather > than code-and-hope-that-its-right. > This is a topic for debate. Imo, comments have their place, but keeping code and lengthy comments in synch never "just happens". > **** > > ** ** > > Leo is turning into just another outlining editor, with scripting. It has > lost what drew me to it in the first-place. > I have never, ever, regretted the way that Leo has redefined LP. The chapter http://leoeditor.com/design.html used to be called, "How Leo improves LP". I've changed the name because I really think LP is pretty much irrelevant. Here is a section from Leo's history: QQQ Late in 1997 I wrote a Print command to typeset an outline. Printing (Weaving) is supposedly a key feature of literate programming. Imagine my surprise when I realized that such a "beautiful" program listing was almost unintelligible; all the structure inherent in the outline was lost! I saw clearly that typesetting, no matter how well done, is no substitute for explicit structure. QQQ So from the very beginning, one major part of LP has been left out of Leo. Later, I realized that sections and section references are usually bad style, except when using languages such as html that have no classes and methods! Except for legacy code, Leo's code uses only << imports >> and similar sections, that would be difficult to simulate with Python defs. In short, you can still say << x >> += y if you want to (the leoTangle module will not be deleted), but I wouldn't recommend it. Edward -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
