On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Todd Mars <tamn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well I am thinking being able to -completely- write protect a node is > interesting to add freedom to add functionality that cannot exist otherwise. > (like cross-file references to nodes which would have to be write > protected) > In that case I could make some interesting documentation (what I do now > mostly with Leo). > If that was possible there would be no difficulty with cross file node > references. As far as I can think! > Whatever can be locked can be unlocked, so I doubt that locking would be anything more than a convenience. The problem with cross-file clones is, in essence, a management problems. Just as two different human managers would not likely agree to share responsibility for a single code module, so too it is unreasonable for two different .leo files to be responsible for any cloned node. The solution, both for humans and for .leo files, is too designate *one* manager (team) as the owner of the code, and have other teams use the code. For .leo files, *one* .leo files "owns" the code, other .leo files use the code, say by importing the code when using Python or JavaScript. This doesn't work for .html code itself: there is no way to import the code. This is why many people want cross-file clones, probably, but the essential management problems remain. 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 leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
