> Oops, I'll fix that. That must mean missing test coverage, too :-(
> --s
+>> A test suite for the dependency resolver *would* be nice. --[[Joey]]
+
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?
> not counting tags and other typed links?". A typed link is
> still a link, in my mind at least. --s
+>> Me neither, let's not worry about it. --[[Joey]]
+
I suspect we could get away without having `tagged_is_strict`
without too much transitional trouble. --[[Joey]]
> care either way; [[Jon]] expressed concern about people relying
> on the current semantics, on one of the pages requesting this
> change. --s
+
+I might have been wrong to introduce `typedlink(tag foo)`. It's not
+very user-friendly, and is more useful as a backend for other plugins
+that as a feature in its own right - any plugin introducing a link
+type will probably also want to have its own preprocessor directive
+to set that link type, and its own pagespec function to match it.
+I wonder whether to make a `typedlink` plugin that has the typedlink
+pagespec match function and a new `\[[!typedlink to="foo" type="bar"]]`
+though... --[[smcv]]
+
+> I agree, per-type matchers are more friendly and I'm not enamored of the
+> multi-parameter pagespec syntax. --[[Joey]]