[Pmwiki-users] Re: [[include: ... ]] part of a page
John Rankin
john.rankin
Mon May 3 20:48:24 CDT 2004
On Tuesday, 4 May 2004 1:00 PM, Patrick R. Michaud <pmichaud at pobox.com> wrote:
>On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 04:05:54PM +0200, Christian Ridderstr?m wrote:
>>
>> which we want to give a meaning. Now, I like the notation
>>
>> [[para:PageName#anchor]]
>>
>> which allows me to include only a single paragraph from a page, and I'd
>> like to assign this to [[include:PageName#anchor]].
>
>I'm working on an implementation, but the above brings up a question--
>what constitutes a "paragraph" in the above? Which of the following
>is (or should be) a "paragraph" in Christian's sense of the
>word...
>
> - just the markup line containing the anchor
> - all lines from the markup line containing the anchor up to the
> next line containing some other anchor
> - all lines from the markup line containing the anchor up to the
> next blank line
>
>Pm
>
>--
>Pmwiki-users mailing list
>Pmwiki-users at pmichaud.com
>http://pmichaud.com/mailman/listinfo/pmwiki-users_pmichaud.com
>
I sort of think it should be up to the next end-of-line character,
because I think
[[#anchor]]What should be included:
# the current line
# lines to the next anchor
# lines to the next blank line
ought to return (IMO) "What should be included:"
I think we can discount 2, because that would be
[[include:Page#from#to]]
if I interpret Christian's proposal correctly.
3 would be OK, but my perference is for 1.
FWIW, in the [[para:Page#anchor]] markup extension,
the code treats:
[[#anchor]]
What should be included:
as if the author had omitted the return after [[#anchor]]
ie it returns "What should be included:"
I couldn't think of a case when one would want it to return
an empty string.
--
JR
--
John Rankin
More information about the pmwiki-users
mailing list