read-only nodes? & @ignore

[HansBKK]

I would like the facility to flag a given node in order to disable editing it from within Leo, but still leave it receptive to reading incoming changes from the filesystem. These are generally within @shadow trees.

Is there such a beast? Not requesting that there be, just inquiring.

I imagine that making such a facility recursive, applying to the nodes below, would cause further clone-war-style problems.


====================
Sidetrack on @ignore - probably mostly off-topic to the above

I had thought from reading this
http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor/browse_thread/thread/bac65cb75484f7cb?pli=1

that I could use @ignore to prevent my edits within Leo from being written out to the filesystem, but seeing that's 3+ years old,


and having found little other doc guidance on explicitly **using** @ignore for content nodes (as to opposed settings, or leo automatic use of them for data loss prevention)


and having found many explicit statements along the lines of:

"@ignore is forbidden in any @file trees" (
  - including @shadow?
  - all @ <file> type directives?
  )


I have decided to ignore @ignore for the moment. . .

[Matt Wilkie]

On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 6:12 PM, HansBKK <han...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would like the facility to flag a given node in order to disable editing
> it from within Leo, but still leave it receptive to reading incoming changes
> from the filesystem. These are generally within @shadow trees.
>
> Is there such a beast? Not requesting that there be, just inquiring.

Something like this could be useful when using Leo as a tool to study
and deconstruct data from Elsewhere. Nodes or trees in outline A would
be read-only, but still cloneable, while outline B, containing clones
fram A, could be a full-fledged Leo citizen. Dunno if this makes
sense, just thinking out loud.

--
-matt

[HansBKK]

On Monday, December 19, 2011 1:57:01 PM UTC+7, Matt Wilkie wrote:

Something like this could be useful when using Leo as a tool to study and deconstruct data from Elsewhere.

** Preeeecisely ** what I'm currently doing with Leo
 
My "B" branch, contains a "parallel" tree, starting out with a different top-level node and clones of those branches I haven't touched yet. When I want to create an edited version of a given node in the branch, I have to create new parent nodes all the way back to the root; this allows me to replace the "A" branch's nodes with mine freely once they and mine are fellow siblings of the "B" parent.

The @nosent output of the B branch is "diffable" against the original @shadow output from the A branch, only so long as I keep the two structures relatively parallel. I have found however that I end up refactoring, reorganizing the structure, or the text too much to continue doing this for long, but the node's clone marks make it pretty easy to see which of B's nodes are mine vs the originals from A.

 

Nodes or trees in outline A would be read-only, but still cloneable, while outline B, containing clones from A, could be a full-fledged Leo citizen.

Not sure what you mean by this. What I'm looking for is the ability to somehow flag all clone-instances of a given node as protected from editing within Leo. That's all that makes sense to me anyway, and my understanding is that - both from the POV of storage and that of Leo's code - there is only one node in both locations so that's all that would be possible.

[HansBKK]

I have no idea why I didn't come across the read_only_nodes plugin, I've been trying to be good about searching before posting for help.

Neither "read-only" nor "read_only" returns hits on "read_only_nodes" which IMO is stupid - how did Google conquer the world again? (by just doing a better job at search than watchamacallit.com, not an excellent one)

Anyway my apologies to the group, just wanted to post this to get these more normal search terms into a relevant thread.

And oh yes, index the leo-editor app folders for searching as well as using the intertubes. . .