On 8/25/09, John Hutchinson <jrhutchin...@att.net> wrote: > Right now I keep only the "foo.leo" file under version control, and > delete all the derived files that make up my project periodically. So > a clean instance of my project is just "foo.leo", then when I write > the missing @file nodes, I get "f1.tex", "f2.py", "f3.tex" and so on > -- all the individual files that are needed. So in this model, the > ".tex", ".py" etc. files are simply intermediate files (like ".pyc" > etc.) that are not essential to preserving my work.
Is this a feature, or a useful bug? Do @file nodes really store a "mirror" of the content in the .leo file? > Clearly if you make this change, and @file goes away, my world does > not end. However there is something attractive and satisfying to me of > having all the small files of various types which make up a project > bundled together in one source file (the ".leo" file) that I can then > treat as a single entity for archiving, copying, backing-up etc. > without worrying about keeping track of all the individual sub-files. Would it be ok to switch to a workflow where you converted all the @thin nodes to @@thin nodes for archival purposes (so that they will be stored in the .leo file), and convert them back to @thin nodes when you actually want to write them? This could be done by a few @buttons/commands, and would be in a bit more solid foundation than using @file. Alternatively, you could use @nosent and convert to @thin if you want to "read back" the file. -- Ville M. Vainio http://tinyurl.com/vainio --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
