In my mind Script means something that is written like a program but depends on the host environment, while Macro is something that is generally recorded and later played back (and, if the software is capable, allows editing of said macro in between. A knowledgeable practitioner can dispense with the record phase and just write to begin with).
>From this standpoint I would say Leo has Scripts but not Macros. What is meaningful to me is "does this code snippet require Leo present to work?": Yes --> Script No --> Program -matt On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 6:29 AM, Edward K. Ream <edream...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 8:17 AM, Miles Fidelman < > mfidel...@meetinghouse.net> wrote: > >> Edward K. Ream wrote: >> >> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 4:41 AM, Reinhard Engel < >>> reinhard.engel...@googlemail.com <mailto:reinhard.engel.de@ >>> googlemail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> Is there conceptually any difference between scripts in Leo and >>> macros in other languages (not macros in C, but macros i.e. in >>> Microsoft Word, Access or Visual Basic)? >>> >>> >>> Two, no three, no four, no five, no six, no seven differences: >>> >>> 1. Leo scripts have access to outline structure. Most other scripting >>> languages do not. >>> 2. Leo scripts have full access to all of Leo's source code. >>> 3. Leo scripts can be built up from outlines via section references. >>> 4. Leo script can be embedded in @button nodes. >>> 5. Leo scripts can be embedded in @test nodes. >>> 6. Leo scripts can create external files, a special case of: >>> 7. Leo scripts can do anything Python can do. >>> >>> I could be wrong, but I believe that emacs Lisp-based scripts can do >> all that as well. >> > > I was referring to VB macros and the like. Obviously, elisp can do more. > > 1. Emacs org mode provides clumsy access to outline data. > 2. elisp has this. > 3. org mode uses noweb, which does not have @others. > 4. Presumably, this could be simulated in elisp, but it wouldn't be pretty. > 5. Ditto. > 6. elisp can do this. > 7. ditto. > > Similar remarks apply to vim and vimoutline mode. > > Org mode is much clumsier to use than Leo. Scripts must be delimited by > special markup. > > So yes, org mode can simulate anything that Leo can do, but these > simulations are going to be clumsy, they will take a lot more work than the > equivalent in Leo (which is why they haven't, in fact, been done) and the > simulations are going to be a lot less convenient for users to use. > > The net effect: the pace of innovation in the Leo world far exceeds that > of the vim/emacs worlds. > > 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. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
