That's a nice simple example of using recursion. A point, not about the
recursion but about the HTML - I'd like to point out that the rendered HTML
won't show the indentation properly because all spaces will be collapsed
into a single space. So
f"\n{indent} <pre>
won't show as intended. One way I've handled this is to use CSS to create
the indents. Each <ul> or <li> element, for example, could use relative
positioning with left padding. You can also produce a left margin line by
specifying a left border for the elements. For example, in one project, I
used a CSS class "term" for my indented items, and the CSS to produce the
indent with margin line was
.terms {border-left:1px lightgrey solid;}
.terms {margin-left:0em; padding-left: 1.2em}
On Sunday, September 14, 2025 at 1:22:09 PM UTC-4 Félix wrote:
> Ah! jkn, *Very good question!!*
>
> That is because I'm not using positions and going from node to node
> sequentially (and having to keep track of level, and keeping track of level
> going back lower to *close tags* when finishing doing children)
>
> I'm using the underlying vnodes, and *recursion*, thus simplifying
> everything as I know exactly the levels going up/down as its tied directly
> to entering/exiting the doChildren function. (as opposed to using
> 'c.all_nodes' for all vnodes in outline order, or 'c.all_positions' for the
> same but with positions)
>
> If you dont use recursion, again, you have then to keep track of the
> current level you are outputting in order to know when to 'close' opened
> tags.
>
> To illustrate this precise point, note that this canonical example about
> generators at
> https://leo-editor.github.io/leo-editor/tutorial-scripting.html#generators
> does NOT care about closing any tags, thus is totally ok with
> "c.all_positions"
>
>
> for p in c.all_positions():
> print(' '*p.level()+p.h)
>
>
> Please take a few minutes to study this construction and its output -
> compared to using 'Positions' (which do have their uses in other scenarios).
> def doChildren(children, level=0):
> global output
> for child in children:
> indent = indentation * level
> output += f"\n{indent} <li>"
> output += f"\n{indent} <b>{child.headString()}</b>"
> # output += f"\n{indent}
> <pre>\n{child.bodyString()}\n{indent} </pre>"
> output += f"\n{indent} <ul>"
> doChildren(child.children, level + 1)
> output += f"\n{indent} </ul>"
> output += f"\n{indent} </li>"
>
> output += "<ul>"
> doChildren(c.hiddenRootNode.children)
> output += "\n</ul>"
> g.es(output)
>
> Félix
> On Sunday, September 14, 2025 at 7:40:19 AM UTC-4 jkn wrote:
>
>> Out of interest ... I haven't seen the use of child.headstring() and
>> child.bodystring() before. Are these basically equivalent to p.h and p.b?
>> Is one form to be preferred?
>>
>> Thanks, J^n
>>
>> On Thursday, September 11, 2025 at 4:00:39 AM UTC+1 Félix wrote:
>>
>>> @Edward @Thomas @jkn
>>>
>>> Ah! I'm so silly! Here's a much better (and smaller) minimal example
>>> who's output can be saved in a file and dragged onto your browser, using
>>> vnodes instead of positions. (uncomment that line for bodies too):
>>>
>>>
>>> output = ''
>>> indentation = ' '
>>> level = -1
>>>
>>> def doChildren(children, level=0):
>>> global output
>>> for child in children:
>>> indent = indentation * level
>>> output += f"\n{indent} <li>"
>>> output += f"\n{indent} <b>{child.headString()}</b>"
>>> # output += f"\n{indent}
>>> <pre>\n{child.bodyString()}\n{indent} </pre>"
>>> output += f"\n{indent} <ul>"
>>> doChildren(child.children, level + 1)
>>> output += f"\n{indent} </ul>"
>>> output += f"\n{indent} </li>"
>>>
>>> output += "<ul>"
>>> doChildren(c.hiddenRootNode.children)
>>> output += "\n</ul>"
>>> g.es(output)
>>>
>>>
>>> @brian I havent had the chance to look at your source leo file... (I
>>> didnt notice it, and had only looked at your 'desired output file' oops !!)
>>>
>>> I now understand your @tool-tip nodes and what you were going for.
>>>
>>> I'll have some more time in the weekend to make a script that really
>>> goes from your leo file example to your 'desired' output HTML file.
>>>
>>> Again - thanks for your interest in Leo - and sorry for that delay!
>>>
>>> Félix
>>> On Tuesday, September 9, 2025 at 1:29:48 PM UTC-4 Edward K. Ream wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 11:37 AM brian <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> @Félix
>>>>>
>>>>> I cannot see the suggestions by Edward about merging that
>>>>> 'all_root_children' into the commander's generators.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The devel branch now contains the new code. I merged it a few hours ago.
>>>>
>>>> Edward
>>>>
>>>
--
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 visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/leo-editor/39b43aed-c732-4e7e-b47d-a8ba2304662an%40googlegroups.com.
