diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/todo/matching_different_kinds_of_links.mdwn | 61 |
1 files changed, 43 insertions, 18 deletions
diff --git a/doc/todo/matching_different_kinds_of_links.mdwn b/doc/todo/matching_different_kinds_of_links.mdwn index 20acdde49..f8796652e 100644 --- a/doc/todo/matching_different_kinds_of_links.mdwn +++ b/doc/todo/matching_different_kinds_of_links.mdwn @@ -97,21 +97,46 @@ Ordinary [[WikiLinks|ikiwiki/WikiLink]] appear in `%links`, but not in An optional third parameter sets the link type (`undef` produces an ordinary [[ikiwiki/WikiLink]]). -> Some code refers to `oldtypedlinks`, and other to `oldlinktypes`. -> -> I'm curious what your reasoning was for adding a new variable -> rather than using `pagestate`. Was it only because you needed -> the `old` version to detect change, or was there other complexity? -> -> I have not convinced myself this is a real problem, but.. -> If a page has a typed link, there seems to be no way to tell -> if it also has a separate, regular link. `add_link` will add -> to `@links` when adding a typed, or untyped link. If only untyped -> links were recorded there, one could tell the difference. But then -> typed links would not show up at all in eg, a linkmap, -> unless it was changed to check for typed links too. -> (Or, regular links could be recorded in typedlinks too, -> with a empty type. (Bloaty.)) -> -> I suspect we could get away without having `tagged_is_strict` -> without too much transitional trouble. --[[Joey]] +## Review + +Some code refers to `oldtypedlinks`, and other to `oldlinktypes`. --[[Joey]] + +> Oops, I'll fix that. That must mean missing test coverage, too :-( +> --s + +I'm curious what your reasoning was for adding a new variable +rather than using `pagestate`. Was it only because you needed +the `old` version to detect change, or was there other complexity? +--J + +> You seemed to be more in favour of adding it to the core in +> your proposal above, so I assumed that'd be more likely to be +> accepted :-) I don't mind one way or the other - `%typedlinks` +> costs one core variable, but saves one level of hash nesting. If +> you're not sure either, then I think the decision should come down +> to which one is easier to document clearly - I'm still unhappy with +> my docs for `%typedlinks`, so I'll try to write docs for it as +> `pagestate` and see if they work any better. --s + +I have not convinced myself this is a real problem, but.. +If a page has a typed link, there seems to be no way to tell +if it also has a separate, regular link. `add_link` will add +to `@links` when adding a typed, or untyped link. If only untyped +links were recorded there, one could tell the difference. But then +typed links would not show up at all in eg, a linkmap, +unless it was changed to check for typed links too. +(Or, regular links could be recorded in typedlinks too, +with a empty type. (Bloaty.)) --J + +> I think I like the semantics as-is - I can't think of any +> reason why you'd want to ask the question "does A link to B, +> not counting tags and other typed links?". A typed link is +> still a link, in my mind at least. --s + +I suspect we could get away without having `tagged_is_strict` +without too much transitional trouble. --[[Joey]] + +> If you think so, I can delete about 5 LoC. I don't particularly +> care either way; [[Jon]] expressed concern about people relying +> on the current semantics, on one of the pages requesting this +> change. --s |