Edward, though I am an org-mode user, I keep an eye on Leo. This is because, as far as I know, org-mode has no mechanism similar to your type of clones. Your clones are elegant. The things you can do with @others are only possible because of your elegant clones, is that fair to say?
I hope that I can use clones like that in org-mode one day. Please let me be careful here. I don't wish to step on any toes here, but I'm about to suggest something radical: Could it be that org-mode isn't as clumsy as you think? :) Please consider this evidence: org-mode is easily hundreds of times more popular than Leo. It's also older, bigger, has more developers, and a more active mailing list. There's also an IRC channel. Do you really think that it would have such a dedicated community if it were 'clumsy'? :) As I see it, Leo could look to org-mode as an older brother and a positive role model. (Have you looked at the 8.x exporter framework? It is modular and supports more export formats than Leo, with very consistent results across formats.) As I alluded to, I see the sibling relationship as two way street: there is at least one big, important thing that I think org-mode should learn from Leo. But, it is a hard lesson, and I don't know how to convey it myself. Keep up the good work and happy holidays, --Dave p.s. Regarding the script delimiters, don't .leo files look the same, if you just read the source in a non-Leonine text editor? I know you're busy with Leo, but if you need a break sometime, spend an afternoon looking at org-mode's UI. Here is a short video that shows someone using the UI to work with code blocks http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsYdK0C2RvQ (in this case, they aren't running the code or tangling it into a program, they are writing documentation--but those tasks use the same UI). Here is a video that's much longer but happens to address your points 1, 2 and 4 through 7, (note 15:05 for point 4! Few emacs users use @button-type functionality, but it is there!) Incidentally, regarding #3: actually org-babel was inspired by, is compatible with, and supports noweb, but it doesn't depend on it or use it exclusively. You can re-use snippets in multiple places, but not as elegantly as Leo does it with clones. On Monday, November 25, 2013 8:29:55 AM UTC-6, Edward K. Ream wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 8:17 AM, Miles Fidelman > <mfid...@meetinghouse.net<javascript:> > > wrote: > >> Edward K. Ream wrote: >> >> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 4:41 AM, Reinhard Engel <reinhard...@googlemail. >>> com <javascript:> <mailto:reinhard...@googlemail.com <javascript:>>> >>> 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.
