perhaps the typedlink(tag foo) pagespec isn't so useful

[ikiwiki.git] / doc / todo / matching_different_kinds_of_links.mdwn

diff --git a/doc/todo/matching_different_kinds_of_links.mdwn b/doc/todo/matching_different_kinds_of_links.mdwn
index 0049281fe9f3991f8d7005966cb149dc9d816348..4f52ade52287634e7b92a89dac15f8d83b5b3ef8 100644 (file)
--- a/doc/todo/matching_different_kinds_of_links.mdwn
+++ b/doc/todo/matching_different_kinds_of_links.mdwn
@@ -96,3 +96,56 @@ Ordinary [[WikiLinks|ikiwiki/WikiLink]] appear in `%links`, but not in
  
 An optional third parameter sets the link type (`undef` produces an ordinary
 [[ikiwiki/WikiLink]]).
+
+## 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
+
+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]]