On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 2:30:25 PM UTC-4, Edward K. Ream wrote: > > *Other panes* > > Most IDE's support lots and lots of other views. It's an open question > how useful these would be in Leo. >
Rather than focus entirely on usefulness (which is always important to focus on) it is also important to consider what this would me architecturally. Supporting views requires considering how "panes" are represented programmatically. Acting on this might hopefully bring with it a simplification of the code for window configuration and would likely also aid *Non-outline tabs *or tabbed windowing in general. As a point of comparison, take a look at emacs's buffer system. In emacs a buffer and a pane are separate concepts, panes being views into buffers. You can close a pane but it will not close the buffer. Because you can modify/eliminate views without losing the underlying content emacs windows tend to be quite fluid in their layout with panes appearing when needed and disappearing/closed when not needed anymore, but with their respective buffers remaining if needed again. It allows for saving a view history and being able to navigate backwards and forward through the views. This level of modularity and separation may not be necessary. I've never been unhappy with Leo's window configuration options. Leo has a unique interaction paradigm (file nodes and the tree), such that I haven't particularly missed views. But that doesn't mean that the user experience wouldn't benefit from them. -- 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 leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
