On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Ville M. Vainio <[email protected]> wrote:
>> My guess is that both pass1 and pass2 should scan up and down the tree >> for an @valuespace node, pretty much like the rst3 command does. > > I don't like this idea. I prefer the scope to be the whole leo > document. The valuable data can be everywhere, I don't want it > "ghettoed" under some specific subtree. My intuition/preference is different, but we can do it your way for now. The problem with everything being global is that it doesn't take advantage of outline structure. But as you say, it can also be an advantage. Clearly, the rst3 command would be less convenient if it always processed all files in an outline, so the design choice can go either way. But a global namespace is definitely a bad idea, imo. I plan to use g.vs.get(c.hash()) as the namespace in which to execute commands. It's a trivial change in code, but very important for sanity. Edward -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en.
