support for Emacs & Haskell
Gour
I plan to start working on a Haskell project soon and it may happen
that, at least in the beginning, I'd be the only one working on it.
Now I'm using Emacs with haskell-mode and have few questions about
possible adoption of Leo:
a) I saw at LP some bug about Haskell support
(https://bugs.launchpad.net/leo-editor/+bug/438443) and wonder whether
it is going to be part of 4.7 and what it does?
b) can one continue to use Emacs+haskell-mode on the 'editor-part'?
c) how is collaboration done if one uses Leo, i.e. does it mean that
all the (potential) participants have to use it or not? (pls. excuse
me if this is FAQ, but now I'm going to read some of the Leo's docs.)
Sincerely,
Gour
--
Gour | Hlapicina, Croatia | GPG key: F96FF5F6
----------------------------------------------------------------
Edward K. Ream
c) how is collaboration done if one uses Leo, i.e. does it mean that
all the (potential) participants have to use it or not?
This is a long discussion, but the short answer is "no", nobody ever has to use Leo to do anything.
Edward
Gour
>>>>>> "Edward" == "Edward K. Ream" wrote:
Edward> This is a long discussion, but the short answer is "no", nobody
Edward> ever has to use Leo to do anything.
Thank you for reply.
For now Leo looks as great tool for single-developer who wants to write
(Haskell) code and docs in rst, and the fact that it does not enforce
it to others (potential contributors) is cool.
I'm still wondering why the Leo is not 'sold' more to the Haskell
community who tend to like (in one way or the other) LP programming
with the language having some intrinsic support for it.
Luckily, I get some helpful info on the haskell-cafe list about using
Leo for Haskell along with the Emacs and it's (nice) haskell-mode
making Leo to serve as higher-level 'meta-editor'.
Edward K. Ream
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 15:53:31 -0600
>>>>>> "Edward" == "Edward K. Ream" wrote:
Edward> This is a long discussion, but the short answer is "no", nobody
Edward> ever has to use Leo to do anything.
I should have pointed you at this entry in the FAQ:
http://webpages.charter.net/edreamleo/FAQ.html#how-can-i-use-leo-cooperatively-without-sentinels
I'm still wondering why the Leo is not 'sold' more to the Haskell
community who tend to like (in one way or the other) LP programming
with the language having some intrinsic support for it.
That would be for somebody like you to do. That is, somebody who uses Leo and Haskell.
Luckily, I get some helpful info on the haskell-cafe list about using
Leo for Haskell along with the Emacs and it's (nice) haskell-mode
making Leo to serve as higher-level 'meta-editor'.
Edward
Gour
>>>>>> "Edward" == "Edward K. Ream" >>>>>> wrote:
Edward> I should have pointed you at this entry in the FAQ:
Thank you. I've skipped FAQ wanting to read some other parts of the
manual, and learnt about @shadow. Now I've to learn about @auto in
order to be able to choose the best option.
In any case, Leo is 'getting under the skin' here...although I know
about it for quite some years when, iirc, wx was option for gui
toolkit.
Gour
>>>>>> "Edward" == "Edward K. Ream" >>>>>> wrote:
Edward> I should have pointed you at this entry in the FAQ:
Edward>
Edward> http://webpages.charter.net/edreamleo/FAQ.html#how-can-i-use-leo-cooperatively-without-sentinels
I read the above entry as well as browsed the group's archives being
interested about @shadow and saw it's one of the 'Aha' features.
I've tried converting to/from shadow/thin and, based on quite minimal
testing, it seems it works quite nicely.
So, I'm just curious if someone has some more experience in converting
the open-source project between 'thin' and 'shadow' assuming that not
everybody will lake adopting and/or reading Leo's sentinels?
For now, when I'm starting alone, it is reasonable to use @thin and
have full power of the Leo on disposal.
One question in regards to that: in FAQ it is written that 'The
repository contains “reference” .leo files...Leo’s bzr repository
contains the reference versions of the following .leo files:
LeoPyRef.leo and LeoPluginsRef.leo. However, Leo’s distributions
contain the non-reference versions of those files: LeoPy.leo and
LeoPlugins.leo...Developers will use local copies of reference files
for their own work.'
Being curious about those ref. vs. non-ref. versions, I dl-ed
4.6.3-final and found there is LeoPyRef.leo file instead of LeoPy.leo?
Following the logic that "reference files should contain nothing but
@thin nodes.", I assume that "local copies" of those are created based
on the reference ones and expanded to developer's own notes/nodes, but
I'm curious if I'm right concluding that those 'reference files' have
no place under SCCS in the scenario using shadow nodes?
Edward> > I'm still wondering why the Leo is not 'sold' more to the
Edward> > Haskell community who tend to like (in one way or the other)
Edward> > LP programming with the language having some intrinsic
Edward> > support for it.
Edward> That would be for somebody like you to do. That is, somebody
Edward> who uses Leo and Haskell.
You're right and I'll try to do my contribution in popularizing Leo in
Haskell community as well as the tool helping one writing rst docs.
Edward K. Ream
I've tried converting to/from shadow/thin and, based on quite minimal
testing, it seems it works quite nicely.
[snip]
For now, when I'm starting alone, it is reasonable to use @thin and
have full power of the Leo on disposal.
Yes. I would recommend that. BTW, if you are using the bzr trunk, @file will work just like @thin, and using @file is recommended.
One question in regards to that: in FAQ it is written that 'The
repository contains “reference” .leo files...Leo’s bzr repository
contains the reference versions of the following .leo files:
LeoPyRef.leo and LeoPluginsRef.leo. However, Leo’s distributions
contain the non-reference versions of those files: LeoPy.leo and
LeoPlugins.leo...Developers will use local copies of reference files
for their own work.'
Being curious about those ref. vs. non-ref. versions, I dl-ed
4.6.3-final and found there is LeoPyRef.leo file instead of LeoPy.leo?
Yes. Only the "reference" versions of the files above are included in distributions.
Following the logic that "reference files should contain nothing but
@thin nodes.", I assume that "local copies" of those are created based
on the reference ones and expanded to developer's own notes/nodes, but
I'm curious if I'm right concluding that those 'reference files' have
no place under SCCS in the scenario using shadow nodes?
No. In any SCCS, only the reference files .leo files should be part of the repository. Users then copy the reference .leo file to a local copy. The point is that reference files need to change only when files are added to the repository.
HTH.
Edward
Gour
>>>>>> "Edward" == "Edward K. Ream" >>>>>> wrote:
Edward> Yes. I would recommend that. BTW, if you are using the bzr
Edward> trunk, @file will work just like @thin, and using @file is
Edward> recommended.
Thank you for the hint.
Edward> Yes. Only the "reference" versions of the files above are
Edward> included in distributions.
Hmm, but the FAQ entry says just the opposite: "However, Leo’s
distributions contain the non-reference versions of those files:
LeoPy.leo and LeoPlugins.leo" ??
Edward> No. In any SCCS, only the reference files .leo files should be
Edward> part of the repository. Users then copy the reference .leo
Edward> file to a local copy. The point is that reference files need
Edward> to change only when files are added to the repository.
Thank you. This part is clear.
Edward K. Ream
Edward> Yes. Only the "reference" versions of the files above are
Edward> included in distributions.
Hmm, but the FAQ entry says just the opposite: "However, Leo’s
distributions contain the non-reference versions of those files:LeoPy.leo and LeoPlugins.leo" ??
Fixed on the trunk at rev 2495. Not on the actual web site yet.
Edward