On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 4:41:50 AM UTC-6, Zoom.Quiet wrote: > but through words, look like @auto just base bad name?
@auto isn't a great name, but it's not terrible. Having two names for the same code does not seem like a good idea to me. > if one future [feature?] can not significantly improve the development efficiency ignore it! @auto is useful, but it can not replace @file. as discussed, the Leo big problem is : > > CAN NOT EASY EMBED NORMAL TEAM DEVELOPING FLOW > > so the @auto is seem not clear and significantly future? > The new @auto project was an attempt at making Leo much easier to use in teams. But the new @auto is bad engineering: it's too complex, too fragile and too slow and it is not powerful enough. Instead, @shadow is a reasonable (if not perfect) way to use Leo in teams. The *old* @auto will always be useful. People in teams can use @auto files as they are, or they can convert @auto to @shadow. They can even convert @auto to @file for their own *private* use. So the old @auto will always be useful. HTH. 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.
