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 TiddlyWiki many of the skilled tweakers are *not *professional programmers. That is part of it's character--practically it is used by folk of many kinds. Regarding the OP, I think it will appeal to the "hobbyist jacker" too ...who is the neophyte+. Certainly any idea you *have* to be a full-on programmer to deep tweak TW would be wrong. The whole thing we do here is testament that it isn't. So in that context it might be worth revisiting your interesting OP. Whom are you thinking needs the "*caller*" / "*callee*" differentiation? Anyway, happy today TT On Sunday, 16 January 2022 at 14:06:45 UTC+1 [email protected] wrote: > @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/1d104045-bd0f-46ac-abca-7609f1d56eaen%40googlegroups.com.
