On Monday, August 17, 2015 at 8:53:47 PM UTC-4, Dufriz wrote:
... improving user friendliness for non-technologically savvy users is
paramount. This has been pointed out and requested so many times in the
past... I am very happy to hear that Edward thinks that most of the
essential stuff
This was a great explanation and actually made me laugh (at cricket's
chirping).
On Monday, August 17, 2015 at 11:47:21 AM UTC-4, Terry Brown wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 13:18:23 -0700 (PDT)
john lunzer lun...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
I understand their general purpose but not why
*checks pocket, finds 2 cents*
There's a tension between wanting Leo to gain widespread
appreciation and making changes which Edward doesn't
consider important. Understandable, Edward has a different
relationship with Leo than others.
I wrote Leo for my own uses, primarily to aid the design,
Hi Edward,
I don't know how often this has been asked:
What if options would not be set via head or body of a node but be
attributes of this node?
Of course not Class attributes but attributes of specific instances to keep
everything smaller.
Why I'm asking:
Today I tried to integrate my code
On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 10:39:45 -0700 (PDT)
holgersc...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi Edward,
I don't know how often this has been asked:
What if options would not be set via head or body of a node but be
attributes of this node?
I think what you're suggesting would be, in Leo terminology,
Hi Ed, thanks for your detailed response.
I do agree with your points that (at least for now) the desktop isn't dead
yet. But
delivery model aside, I'm still hopeful that some evolution might happen
for Leo to end up being workable in a team environment.
I got a bit of a rude shock a year ago
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 2:59 PM, David McNab davidmcna...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Ed, thanks for your detailed response.
You're welcome.
I got a bit of a rude shock a year ago when I took my present development
role. At first, I imported one of my job's codebases into a Leo tree, with
aim
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Kent Tenney kten...@gmail.com wrote:
*checks pocket, finds 2 cents*
Or rather, several gold pieces :-) You and Terry seem to understand me
and my goals and motivations very well. I appreciate your comments.
There's a tension between wanting Leo to gain
Good question... and one I'm entirely unqualified to answer!
...Edward?
--Jake
On 8/18/2015 9:35 PM, David McNab wrote:
How does @clean handle it when a teammate does a major restructure of
a module? For example, refactors a Python class into a base, a derived
plus a mixin, and moves 4
On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 5:32:49 PM UTC-4, Edward K. Ream wrote:
Yes. I have always done pretty much exactly what I wanted to do.
However, many times people have convinced me that I should want something
more :-)
This may be a perceptual mistake in many cases. As I see it *we*
How does @clean handle it when a teammate does a major restructure of a
module? For example, refactors a Python class into a base, a derived plus a
mixin, and moves 4 global functions into the base class as methods, and
moves 3 methods of the class out into functions?
(Just asking)
On 19 August
However, many times people have convinced me that I should want something more
:-)
or something less
**cough (clones) cough**
:-]
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Edward K. Ream edream...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Kent Tenney kten...@gmail.com wrote:
*checks pocket,
To spare someone unknown some time:
A node titled
@rst-code somename
will look strange in the treepane of a future source file. But those titles
will not get included as source-code into the resulting source files.
So if you want to produce documentation in rst and write code
side-by-side(like
Use @clean. While not automatic, it preserves structure in your .leo
file instead of using sentinels. That solves half of the problem.
But I agree, many filetypes are simply not able to be automatically
imported with any real sense of meaning.
--Jake
On 8/18/2015 3:59 PM, David McNab
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 7:53 PM, Dufriz duf...@gmail.com wrote:
For the umpteenth time (sorry about the abrasive tone): improving user
friendliness for non-technologically savvy users is paramount. This has
been pointed out and requested so many times in the past.
How many times do I have to
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 8:17 PM, David McNab davidmcna...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree - Leo is probably way more than 100% feature-complete. It's also
been a tremendous comfort to me and my solo programming efforts over the
years.
Glad to hear it.
However, Leo is still imprisoned in the
16 matches
Mail list logo
