> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 11:55 AM, 'Terry Brown' via leo-editor <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
> wondering if some automated source analysis could at least list
>> doc'ed and not doc'ed commands, if not extract docs. from the command
>> definitions.
>>
>
Thanks for your initial suggestion. It got me thinking about strategy. I
finally saw that I may as well assume that none of the candidates are
properly documented. The task then becomes folding them into the Reference.
There is a smarter way to do this: sort the candidates (by hand) by
destination node (in the Reference) before moving them. I can then move
each group en masse to its single destination node, and then fold each
member of the group into the text. This will save a lot of work.
Still, there is a lot of work to do. For instance, here is one of the
items::
QQQ
- Changed names of commands so they have common prefixes
Any custom key bindings (none are bound by default) will have to change.
The new prefixes are::
abbrev- abbreviation commands
buffer- buffer command
directory- director commands
file- file commands
gc- garbage collection
macro- macro expansion
rectangle- rectangle commands
register register commands
The already existing prefixes are::
apropos- help
dabbrev- dynamic abbreviations
find- find commands
isearch- incremental search
print- print information
run- run unit tests
toggle- toggle settings
yank- yank
QQQ
Each prefix will have to be checked by hand. Otoh, I expect all commands
with the same prefix to exist in the same place in the Reference, so it
shouldn't be too horrible. But some prefixes likely don't exist anywhere.
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.
