>> However, when working with source code, I consider the correct structure
>> to be that provided by the language: declarations, functions, classes,
>> methods ... exactly what @auto does, no more, no less.

This seems to imply a misunderstanding:
>I disagree.  You seem to be forgetting organizer nodes.

@auto structures along the margins defined by the language,
which is what I prefer.

Organizer nodes are additional structure which can be added,
are leo-centric, and require @file (== sentinels)

Correct?




On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Edward K. Ream <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 8:18 AM, Kent Tenney <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Wondering about current status and potential direction:
>>
>> There have been a couple of mentions of @auto nodes
>> gaining persistence, what are the chances of this happening
>> in core?
>
> If we can do it, it will find its way into the core.
>
> It seems to me that we are in time of creative ferment/confusion on
> this topic.
>
> The recent discussion re clones and bookmarks and urls is one way it
> might happen. Fidel's idea of tracking changes to nodes in a way (if I
> understand him correctly) that might preserve unls might be another
> way. And your work, Kent, with db's is part of the mix.
>
>> Something like persistent UAs, such that
>> @auto <file.py> would store the UAs of the tree, putting
>> them in it's UA.
>
> It's not the persistence of the uA's that is the problem: it's the
> persistence of the identify (gnx's) of nodes or alternatively, the
> persistence of node-related bookmarks.  Persisting gnx is the platinum
> standard; persisting bookmarks might be good enough.
>
>> I'll start on scaffolding outside Leo to persist @auto nodes
>> if this isn't going to happen, but core would be nice.
>> #cough#(someone else does the work)#cough#
>
> I think we are all, in various interestingly different ways, working
> on this problem.  You could say we are working in a slow-motion sprint
> ;-)  My guess is that eventually the confusion will clear, and a clear
> way forward will appear.  When that happens, the solution will move to
> the core.
>
>> However, when working with source code, I consider the correct structure
>> to be that provided by the language: declarations, functions, classes,
>> methods ... exactly what @auto does, no more, no less.
>
> I disagree.  You seem to be forgetting organizer nodes.
>
> 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/d/optout.

-- 
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/d/optout.

Reply via email to