I would be inclined to agree, it does look like redundant information. There would however be some benefit to some sort of delineation made between nodes, but I'm not proposing a new node type to do so. I think to be perfectly honest there will always be a struggle when editing a shared code base when using Leo and others are not using Leo.
Edward has addressed this many times at many levels. Leo is already pretty smart with Python code for small edits. I'm not certain there is a great answer other than adding in even MORE "intelligence" into Leo's algorithms which chop up the Python code into nodes. For example Leo could, but doesn't, create a new node(s) when a new method class or function definition is created. This seems odd given that Leo has the ability to chop things up initially. Seems like it wouldn't be a huge stretch to extend this behavior. On Friday, August 21, 2015 at 5:48:26 AM UTC-4, [email protected] wrote: > > How much more informative if instead it could become something like >>> #*** Imports and magic >>> import mypackage >>> my_magic_number = 42 >>> #*** class definition >>> class A(object): >>> #*** *** method 1 >>> def method1(self): >>> pass >>> # description of aims of method >>> #*** *** method 2 >>> def method2(self): >>> pass >> >> >> What do you gain by such redundant comments? > > Every Python programmer knows that 'class' is a class definition and 'def' > (within a class) a method definition. The aims of a method should be > expressed by its name. And for additional commentary information is ample > room within the method itself. > > Reinhard > > -- 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.
