On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Fidel N <[email protected]> wrote:
[snip] Whenever the user moved node B from its current position into being a child > of C (Any node with another different relative path), Leo should ask if the > files should also be moved to into a path relative to its new path. > There is a general principle here. Leo never worries about what you have done until you are ready to write the outline any dirty @<file> nodes. It would be incredibly difficult to have various commands check for any kind of consistency. The only exception is that the various move commands ensure that no cloned node is an ancestor or child of itself. Leo already does warn if a cloned @<file> node implies two different paths. Iirc, Leo just issues a warning. Also, Leo warns if the path used to read the file is no longer the path that will be used to write the path. Again. This check is only made when actually writing the @<file> node. > > This way we could move nodes with relative path freely and we would > effectively be moving the files too, without any effort added at all. Just > a basic thought, it would need a bit of development to think of possible > scenarios (copying paths without files, what happens when the file already > exists in destination location, etc). > I believe Leo already allows you to do this. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
