Looking at the test erlang file, I see that the "<< ... >> " syntax seems to be an essential part. I had at first thought they were symbols that had not been escaped by the XML ingesting code, but I see that was wrong. I wonder if the section delineator characters "<< .... >> " could be changed using a directive, much like the comment character can be changed. Perhaps that would not be too much of a code change?
On Monday, September 16, 2024 at 9:55:58 AM UTC-4 Thomas Passin wrote: > An @edit file is always considered to be a text file, isn't it? So we're > thinking that an @edit node was created when it should have been something > else, right? > > On Monday, September 16, 2024 at 9:49:39 AM UTC-4 Edward K. Ream wrote: > >> >> >> On Monday, September 16, 2024 at 7:38:18 AM UTC-5 Edward K. Ream wrote: >> >> On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 5:41 AM 'rengel' via leo-editor wrote: >> >> BTW: Is there a safe way to include "<<...>>" structs in source code in >> the body pane? How can Leo be prevented from looking for such structs in >> the body pane? >> >> >> <<...>> *always *means a section reference for @file nodes. There are no >> exceptions. This constraint is the *only* way of reading @file nodes >> reliably, so this constraint is a fundamental part of Leo. >> >> <<...>> may be just text in other kinds of @<file> trees. See Leo's >> reference for details. >> >> >> This page >> <https://leo-editor.github.io/leo-editor/directives.html#part-1-file-and-path-directives> >> >> tells what kinds of @<file> trees may contain section references. >> >> 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/leo-editor/ea8828fa-648e-4f64-b280-282f20bfdeafn%40googlegroups.com.
