@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 [email protected] wrote: > 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 programmer, as you note. > > Generally, I rather relish introducing neologisms: it can be a powerful > way to give people a conceptual blank slate on which to build meaning. The > canonical example is the term "tiddler", which I started using when writing > the code of the very first version of "TwiddlyWiki" (as it then was). I > wanted to be able to write clear, readable function names but found that > calling tiddlers conventional words like "node" or "object" gave rise to > generic method names that were already overloaded with unwanted meanings. > Introducing the term made the code cleaner, and so I soon started using it > in the user interface too. > > The trouble is that we have a very limited budget for new terms; each one > acts as a little barrier for new users. So I try to avoid making neologisms > unless absolutely necessary. And if there's an existing word that's a good > fit then I try to reuse it (e.g. "plugins"). > > In this case, I think I've got away without these terms because of a twist > in the way that I think about things: although transclusion always involves > a transcludee, there isn't necessarily a transcluder. The thing doing the > transcluding might be a dynamically constructed macro that doesn't have a > 1:1 relationship with a tiddler. Now, I appreciated that that is a rarified > way of looking at things but it still guides me in writing the docs. > > Anyhow, lots of interesting stuff in this area, thanks for bring it up. > > Best wishes > > Jeremy. > > > > On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 4:51:50 PM UTC [email protected] wrote: > >> @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 <https://www.bespeaking.com/suffixes-er-and-ee-which-is-which/>). >> It is useful as a common concept or abstraction to express that seemingly >> non-related things (i.e. on process calling another, one function calling >> another, one person calling another) have the same structure, and that >> aspects that pertain to one instance of this concepts might be >> transferrable to another instance of this concept (i.e. to save work). >> >> "Certainly any idea you *have* to be a full-on programmer to deep tweak >> TW would be wrong." >> >> I don't know what you mean by "full-on programmer". TwiddlyWiki uses >> several well established programming and 'page-description' languages >> (HTML, CSS, Javascript, Markup) plus its own wikitext syntax for macros, >> pragmas, etc. The mastery of each of these requires some amount of time and >> practice. I guess, you didn't start out with transclusions and tweaking >> TiddlyWiki when you first started using it? Even if you don't consider >> yourself a 'programmer', neverless programming is what you are doing when >> you tweak TW. But that's just semantics, nothing productive... >> >> So the lore, wisdom, principles, etc. of the programming community as a >> whole might be applicable to TW as well. For instance, the general >> programming principles, that function should do one thing and one thing >> only or that a function should be as small as possible, apply to macros as >> well. >> >> Have a neice evening, >> -Reinhard >> >> >> >> >> On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 3:11:45 PM UTC+1 TiddlyTweeter wrote: >> >>> 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/1ff7a00b-5e4a-48f0-a33b-75fd1131f9fdn%40googlegroups.com.
