diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/todo/tracking_bugs_with_dependencies.mdwn | 6 |
1 files changed, 5 insertions, 1 deletions
diff --git a/doc/todo/tracking_bugs_with_dependencies.mdwn b/doc/todo/tracking_bugs_with_dependencies.mdwn index 2832e37aa..b8c5b8f20 100644 --- a/doc/todo/tracking_bugs_with_dependencies.mdwn +++ b/doc/todo/tracking_bugs_with_dependencies.mdwn @@ -11,6 +11,8 @@ I like the idea of [[tips/integrated_issue_tracking_with_ikiwiki]], and I do so > >> I thought about this briefly, and got about that far.. glad you got >> further. :-) --[[Joey]] + +>> Or, one could also refer to the language of [[!wikipedia description logics]]: their formulas actually define classes of objects through quantified relations to other classes. --Ivan Z. > > Another option would be go with a more functional syntax. The concept here would > be to allow a pagespec to appear in a 'pagespec function' anywhere a page can. e.g. @@ -67,13 +69,15 @@ I like the idea of [[tips/integrated_issue_tracking_with_ikiwiki]], and I do so >>>> Yeah, guess that'd work. :-) -> One quick further thought. All the above discussion assumes that 'dependency' is the +> <a id="another_kind_of_links" />One quick further thought. All the above discussion assumes that 'dependency' is the > same as 'links to', which is not really true. For example, you'd like to be able to say > "This bug does not depend upon [ [ link to other bug ] ]" and not have a dependency. > Without having different types of links, I don't see how this would be possible. > > -- [[Will]] +>> I saw that this issue is targeted at by the work on [[structured page data#another_kind_of_links]]. --Ivan Z. + Okie - I've had a quick attempt at this. Initial patch attached. This one doesn't quite work. And there is still a lot of debugging stuff in there. |