I dont see any other opportunities but to re-design Leo, leave all the features but change all the mechanics.
Let me give an example. Let it be the problem of code navigation. Far away from the start of the epoch editors did it themselves: parsers, regexps, strange approaches. I keep remember early KDevelop which implemented most of C++ parsing right in the code of the editor! What came next? ctags, service on demand. Editor asks to parse the file and get result in some standard format. This made different editors similar to each other, and choosing one became just a question of taste. But later another actor came onto the scene: language servers. There became no reason to even ask - you can just take. Editors and navigation information became absolutely independent. That made all IDEs quite indistinguishable. Using this example as a basis I'd love to say the following: Leo now at stage 1 and to evolve further more it should jump into stage 2. There's now ways to evolve inside stage 1 anymore cause this is almost the superior state of it now. So the problem is not - should Leo communicate with vim or say notepad++ - the problem is: should Leo change it's architecture without loosing it's features. No matter which answer would be given - vim bridge is not needed. No, it's not great. Any ideas would be appreciated. > -- 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/CAC%2B8SVyiXQZRuP-eu%2BUNPWb%2BoqNsS0ahWuW3oueM9mr4NYKkBA%40mail.gmail.com.
