On Thursday, February 27, 2020 at 10:31:57 AM UTC-5, Marcel Franke wrote: > > > Am Donnerstag, 27. Februar 2020 15:46:04 UTC+1 schrieb Thomas Passin: > > But in general you are not wrong here. Leo Editor can be used that way, >>> even though it's not be the best for this. But it's not the worst either. >>> It depends on how you polish it and yourself. Using Leo in a way to copy >>> Luhmanns Zettelkasten could be done with 2-3 Simple functions. All you need >>> is something to get the reference of node, and something to got from a link >>> in text to the referenced node. First one is quite simple, just add an >>> entry to the context-menu to get the leo-internal id. Second one could be >>> achived by reusing the existing Hyperlink-Click-function and add support >>> for links with leo:// as protocol. Then the rest is up to you to use it and >>> fill your box. >>> >> >> Just so. That's what I have worked out in some of the posts on this >> thread; a small example, with working code for the three functions, is >> attached to my Feb 25 post on the thread "Comments re the ZettelKasten >> work". The idea is to have something as minimal and non-obtrusive as >> possible, yet still be useful. >> >> > Yes, that's also a way to do it. But I was talking more about a way to > insert links in text, and let the choose. So you can have as many links in > a node as you want. >
In what I am suggesting, you can have as many links in a node as you like. So I think we're covered here. > After all that's some differences in Luhmanns system. But I guess this is > not something that can be done in a @command or plugin. > But you could build a search-interface for listing multiple links in a > node and choosing a target. > I think the capabilities of the Nav tab will go a long way. Eventually, a dedicated plugin may be useful, but I don't think that time is yet. Think of it - if you type a search phrase into the Nav box, but don't type <ENTER> yet, it will show you all the headlines that contain the search phrase. That will probably be all you need in many cases. If not, you can go ahead and press <ENTER>, and in addition see all the bodies that have matching text. It's true that you can't do boolean searches and wildstrings in the current Nav box, but presumable that could be a future enhancement. And the Nav search is *fast*. I loaded the leoPyRef.leo outline, which contains much of the Leo codebase, and found a string in the last node. Then I selected the root node and ran a Nav search for that string. There was no perceptible delay. But funny that we both came up with the same colon-based-syntax for > embedding metadata in nodes :) > > BTW Using "created" instead of "timestamp" would be more > self-documentating. > That's up in the air for me. Should it represent the creation time or the last-modified time? @AndyJim sounded like he'd like to use a last-modified time, because he likes to see what he was working on at a certain period. I don't want to add yet another piece of metadata if it's not needed. It would be simple to modify the id insertion command to also insert a time the command was run, so it's doable if people think it would be important. Yet the Leo id does actually include a timestamp for the creation time. It's just not formatted to be as readable. So by inserting the id, we automatically have it anyway. The way I see it working, if you are editing a note and you want to capture the timestamp, you just highlight the existing timestamp line and hit F7. I haven't found that too intrusive. It would quickly become automatic, if that's what you want to do. And the command could be changed so you only would need to place the cursor somewhere on the timestamp line and press the key (F7 for me so far). I'd like to settle on one specific name for that timestamp, though, and finalize it soon before I have too many nodes the other way. -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/leo-editor/63c74f10-21ae-4b36-be7f-8ebe3d0192db%40googlegroups.com.
