"as expected" seems to be in the eye of the beholder 8-) On Friday, December 16, 2011 11:38:39 PM UTC+7, Edward K. Ream wrote: > > https://bugs.launchpad.net/leo-editor/+bug/882243 > > I'd like to discuss this bug here, because I would like us all to be > aware of the situation, and possible changes. > > The surprise is that the cloned node1 node is written to the external > file only once (as a child of the root node) and hence does not appear > as a (cloned) child of the node2 node when Leo next loads the @file > tree. > This wasn't a surprise to me due to my ignorance, as I only used @others in the file-root (as you're now enforcing with @all).
> Because this is an issue involving @others, you might assume that a > workaround involving sections would be possible. You would be > correct. The following file works as expected:: > > + @file test.txt > << node 1 >> > << node 2 >> > + << node 1>> (cloned) > node 1 text. > + << node 2 >> > << node 1 >> > + << node 1 >>(cloned) > node 1 text. > That this was possible was the surprise - to me. 8-) Now that I know this, it seems like yet one more way - and so far the most explicit/visible and therefore safest way - to avoid data loss due to clone wars. Unfortunately, my current use case does require outputting cloned nodes into different files and folders. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/leo-editor/-/II15iK3QbSUJ. 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.
