On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 08:18:27 -0800 (PST) "Edward K. Ream" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thursday, December 26, 2013 10:02:54 AM UTC-6, Edward K. Ream wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 7:31 AM, Kent Tenney <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Would it make any sense to put the shadow file information into Leo xml? > >> > > > > In fact, that's where it will go. @view and @auto-view are simply nodes > > :-) > > > > Maybe my answer confused which thread we are in. However, the answer will > remain the same. > > If you are asking whether it would be feasible to replace shadow files > (containing sentinels) with data in .leo files, the answer is, "no". > > My interest in @shadow is almost nil at present. The combination of @auto > and @auto-view promises more flexibility than @shadow will ever have. @shadow allows (clones optional) Leonine code views through organizer nodes, complete with node names not derived from method names etc. I guess the function of @view / @auto-view isn't clear enough to me yet to know if they'll replace @shadow completely. If not, then I guess the answer to Kent's question re transporting shadow data in the .leo file would be 'perhaps'. It could certainly work in some collaboration situations, not sure if it would work in all. Cheers -Terry -- 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.
