@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 neophytes. I'm 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. Have a nice day! -Reinhard On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 1:01:39 PM UTC+1 TiddlyTweeter wrote: > 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 "er" from an "ee"? > > *Broadly, in documents, how do we explain complex nested transclusion to > neophytes?* > > This is just a thought. > Overall I like where you coming from. > > Best, TT > > On Sunday, 16 January 2022 at 11:56:49 UTC+1 [email protected] wrote: > >> @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 two tiddlers with a transclusion relationship there is >> never a doubt which tiddler is which. >> "Without positional referencing you would not know what is transcluded >> from what is transcluding." >> >> Its not the concern of the *transcluder* if the *transcludee* produces >> its content by nested transclusions or not. So positional referencing is >> not needed. >> >> "FYI, I think your basic split in terms is useful, but you'll need a *third >> term* too to help *explicate nesting*." >> >> Why? We say transclusions are *nested*, if a *transcludee* (a >> transcluded tiddler) in turn transcludes another tiddler and so takes on >> the role of a *trancluder* relative to this thidd tiddler. >> >> On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 11:36:55 AM UTC+1 Reinhard Engel wrote: >> >>> @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 >>> cumbersome. So I chose the suggested terms. They work for me, and I thought >>> they might be useful in general. >>> >>> Thanks for your remarks! >>> >>> -Reinhard >>> >>> On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 11:21:10 AM UTC+1 Reinhard Engel wrote: >>> >>>> @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 intermediate tiddler takes on both >>>> the roles *transcludee* and *transcluder*. >>>> The relationship is between the transcluder and the transcludee is >>>> strictly binary. The transcluder doesn't and shouldn't care about how the >>>> transcludee produces its content. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/d946c5dd-d084-43f5-9ec4-422a0e31eca3n%40googlegroups.com.
