I guess I took your term "code-manipulation" to mean node manipulation. You're correct that Leo for the most part lacks "code-manipulation" as you've described it.
Given that Leo is written in Python I think that it is natural for Leo to be aimed at being a premier IDE for Python language programming. As I recently stated, adding popular code-manipulation features (jedi/rope/pylint/pyflakes) would bring Leo "up to date" with what most people expect out of an IDE. I believe that Leo does code outlining more naturally and more powerfully than any other editort. With a combination of active-path and quick-search plugins I've found that Leo provides a fantastic code search/discovery method (now that quick-search can do subtree searching). This can be improved greatly with continued development to these two plugins which are high up on my priority list. As for code manipulation I am currently writing a refactoring plugin that uses regex for search and replace which handles Leo's node/outline model very well. I can save regex search/replace rules in a "database" that can be quickly accessed. I've written a few rules to enforce individual PEP8-like refactoring. It needs further development but I use it every day now when "manually" manipulating code in Leo. I wish there were a way to have the best of all worlds and merge the features of Leo with the features of worlds most popular IDEs but this is not likely. It seems that few have discovered the power granted by node/outline based programming (or either they don't care and I'm overselling node/outline based programming). When node/outline based features are implemented elsewhere they are kludgy compared to Leo because Leo was built from the ground up around node/outline based programming and elsewhere it had to be shoehorned in. I find Leo's features to be an invaluable tool in my profession that I've struggled to find elsewhere. I wish it were a one stop shop, but it's not - and that's okay. As I've learned perfection is just around every corner and chasing it is exhausting at best and damaging at worst. On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 9:04:35 AM UTC-4, Marcel Franke wrote: > > > > Am Dienstag, 22. September 2015 12:54:49 UTC+2 schrieb john lunzer: >> >> Leo's stability in code manipulation is not prone to failure, it is very >> deterministic. >> > > You mean node-manipulation? Because actual code-manipulation does not seem > to be a feature from Leo. > Leo just copies node-contents together, without understanding them. It > doesn't uses an > > appropiated styleguide, doesn't correct code, does not even format it to > match the result. > > > From my experience, all leo does is shifting content around. And for this > the traditional tools are already > > good enough for most people, especially if their environment is already > enriched with other tools for refactoring code. > > > I think it is a lack of "popular" features like linters and >> code-analysis/introspection tools (jedi or rope) that cause people to look >> over Leo. >> > > What do you think is Leo's audience and against what applications does it > compete? > -- 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.
