Well, obviously we don't agree on what "reasonably" imported code look like. I have had encountered dozens of js files that *are* imported correctly in terms that they can be written again with the file content unchanged, but they all suffered from creating too many or too few nodes and I had to import them by hand.
Attached to this message are two files one Leo file trying to import the other js file. Put them in the same folder and try import. It fails, it leaves a lot of created nodes with arguably ugly names. No developer would ever name those nodes like importer does, nor he would structure the tree like that if he were creating that file using Leo from the beginning. For me, reasonably imported file must be something close to what a developer would have if he wrote the same source file directly in Leo. So, I can partially agree that current implementation of js importer can import some of the source files, but I personally find those imports useless most of the time. I have to reshape the tree so much that it turned to be more efficient to import whole file in one node and then to extract pieces by hand. YMMV, Vitalije PS: it seems that the js file attachment is refused. It can be found on github. I have just renamed it to jqterm.js. https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jcubic/jquery.terminal/master/js/jquery.terminal.js -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
jsimport-example.leo
Description: Binary data
