We seem to be talking at cross-purposes. I was talking about what the second prompt should say. One might expect logs like: (leaving EKR comments in)
reading settings in C:\Users\Dev\ekr.leo # My local file, read only for its settings. ... reading C:\Users\Dev\ekr.leo # My local file, read for its entire content. But sheesh, I appreciate this is all small beer... On Sunday, November 9, 2025 at 1:18:49 AM UTC [email protected] wrote: > That seems all right to me. If Leo reads the settings by ingesting the > file, to me it's still reading the settings. > > On Saturday, November 8, 2025 at 5:52:09 PM UTC-5 jkn wrote: > >> Yes, I presume so too (comments added by Edward). My point is that the >> string says 'reading settings', and Edward seems to be saying that in fact >> the content is being read. >> >> J^n >> >> >> On Saturday, November 8, 2025 at 9:38:26 PM UTC [email protected] wrote: >> >>> I thought those comment-messages were added by Edward to explain the >>> purpose of each read. I don't see any of them, and the one comment string >>> I searched for is not in the code base. I only see a single load message >>> for each file, except for the first outline opened, which gets four: >>> >>> reading settings in C:\Tom\git\leo-editor\leo\config\leoSettings.leo >>> reading settings in C:\Users\Tom\.leo\myLeoSettings.leo >>> reading settings in C:\Users\Tom\.leo\themes\tbp_dark.leo >>> reading settings in C:\Users\Tom\.leo\workbook.leo >>> >>> >>> On Saturday, November 8, 2025 at 1:13:04 PM UTC-5 Edward K. Ream wrote: >>> >>>> On Saturday, November 8, 2025 at 11:58:59 AM UTC-6 Edward K. Ream wrote: >>>> >>>> On Sat, Nov 8, 2025 at 7:13 AM jkn <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Shouldn't the log message for the second read of ekr.leo be different >>>> then? >>>> >>>> reading *settings* in C:\Users\Dev\ekr.leo # My local file, read for >>>> its entire *content*. >>>> >>>> >>>> Maybe. I'll look into it. If it's wrong there is no reason not to fix >>>> it. Thanks for this question. >>>> >>>> >>>> The message appears to be fine. Whether the *call* that generates the >>>> message is necessary is another matter. >>>> >>>> Having said that, I suspect the code is correct as it stands. >>>> >>>> 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/87462cc6-9a55-4d40-81d6-057c026c104dn%40googlegroups.com.
