[tw5] Re: Transclusion Terminology

@jeremy Thank's for your comments! And thanks for making TiddlyWiki such a great tool! Best wishes Reinhard On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 11:21:59 AM UTC+1 jeremy...@gmail.com wrote: > Hi Reinhard > > Thanks for introducing the topic, as you can see it's an area of interest > for a lot of

[tw5] Re: Transclusion Terminology

Hi Reinhard Thanks for introducing the topic, as you can see it's an area of interest for a lot of us. I had to search the docs to see whether I had used the terms transcluder/transcludee; I wouldn't have been surprised to find that I had because that terminology comes naturally to a

[tw5] Re: Transclusion Terminology

@TiddlyTweeter " Whom are you thinking needs the "*caller*" / "*callee*" differentiation" In the context of TiddlyWiki, nobody! I put it in just as an another example for the "er"-"ee"-relationship (see for instance Suffixes -er and -ee

[tw5] Re: Transclusion Terminology

reinhard: I have an extensive programming background*. *In Programming there it is never a question if a function is the *caller* or the *callee*, even with recursive functions. And in programming *recursion* is an advanced topic, that is definitely not for neophytes. Right. Sort of. BUT in

[tw5] Re: Transclusion Terminology

That's an interesting discussion. I think it's new. I cant remember, that we did discuss it yet. ... At tiddlywiki.com we have the following tiddlers that explain how we use the transclusion mechanism. See: Doc links

[tw5] Re: Transclusion Terminology

@TiddlyTweeter " Overall I like where you coming from." And what might this be? *"Broadly, in documents, how do we explain complex nested transclusion to neophytes?"* *I wouldn't even try!* IMHO, *recursion* and *complex nested transclusions* are topics for people that are no longer

[tw5] Re: Transclusion Terminology

Ciao reinhard, Nice post! To get to the grist... reinhard: "there is never a doubt which tiddler is which" Ah! There is! In your own OP you sensibly want to differentiate "der" from "dee". My concern is for the Virgin User who likely has no idea what *recursion* is; how would they know an

[tw5] Re: Transclusion Terminology

Well, what a nice Sunday morning exchange. -Reinhard On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 12:03:22 PM UTC+1 TiddlyTweeter wrote: > Mat "I occasionally refer to people who use tiddlywiki as *tiddleurs* > (pronounced > with a French accent, in my mind) I don’t expect anyone else to use it" > > You,

[tw5] Re: Transclusion Terminology

Mat "I occasionally refer to people who use tiddlywiki as *tiddleurs* (pronounced with a French accent, in my mind) I don’t expect anyone else to use it" You, bricoleur , you :-) TT On Sunday, 16 January 2022 at 11:58:02 UTC+1 Mat wrote: > I

[tw5] Re: Transclusion Terminology

I occasionally refer to people who use tiddlywiki as *tiddleurs* (pronounced with a French accent, in my mind) I don't expect anyone else to use it but I stick to it because I think it is funny (...hm, I'm not normally that easily amused). If anyone has to ask what I mean, then no biggie. So, I

[tw5] Re: Transclusion Terminology

@TiddlyTweeter *"No, it wouldn't.* The residual issue is* positional reference. *A* transcluder *is* relative *to a *transcludee.* Yes, of course. That' the whole crux of the matter. Any tiddler can take on both the role of a transcluder and a transcludee. It depends on the context. But given

[tw5] Re: Transclusion Terminology

@Mat Never mind! Just image you always have to say "the employing person" vs "the employed person". Anyway, I wanted to add some information about transclusions into my wiki and looked for some suitable tiddler titles. *TheTranscludingTiddler* and *TheTranscludedTiddler* seemed to

[tw5] Re: Transclusion Terminology

@TiddlyTweeter You wrote: "Part of the issue* though* is that in TW "transclusion" is potentially *radical*. Transclusions can be nested infinitely. So, in that context, the terms "Transcluder" / "Transcludee" would not be so transparent in actual use" If transclusions are nested, each

[tw5] Re: Transclusion Terminology

reinhard...@gmail.com wrote: The tiddler that’s referencing another tiddler is called the *transcluder*, the tiddler (content) that is being included is called the *transcludee*. That would be it. --- *No, it wouldn't.* The residual issue is* positional reference. *A* transcluder *is*

[tw5] Re: Transclusion Terminology

Sorry, I just thought it was funny but I guess not. I've personally never had a problem to say e.g "the transcluding tiddler" vs "the transcluded tiddler". <:-) On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 10:53:13 AM UTC+1 reinhard...@gmail.com wrote: > @Mat > > Why LOL? > > Normally, every new term has

[tw5] Re: Transclusion Terminology

@Mat Why LOL? Normally, every new term has to be explained when it is introduced. What's wrong with *Transclusion* is generally the inclusion of the content of a tiddler into another tiddler by reference. The tiddler that's referencing another tiddler is called the *transcluder*, the tiddler

[tw5] Re: Transclusion Terminology

reinhard...@gmail.com wrote: > ... may I suggest the two terms > > *Transcluder* (the tiddler that's doing the transclusion) > *Transcludee* (the tiddler that's being transcluded) > I think that is a neat observation! The "linguistics" of terms in computing generally often lacks the precision

[tw5] Re: Transclusion Terminology

LOL! Sure, but you're running the risk of having to explain the term which kind of nullifies the point... ;-) <:-) On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 8:57:24 AM UTC+1 reinhard...@gmail.com wrote: > When talking about transclusions, it's a little cumbersome to talk about *the > tiddler that's