positives). Still, it does work, and it makes things like simple maps and
pagecounts much more efficient.
+----
+
+#### Will's first pass feedback.
+
+If the API is going to be updated, then it would be good to make it forward compatible.
+I'd like for the API to be extendible to what is useful for complex pagespecs, even if we
+that is a little redundant at the moment.
+
+My attempt to play with this is in my git repo. [[!template id=gitbranch branch=origin/depends-spec author="[[will]]"]]
+That branch is a little out of date, but if you just look at the changes in IkiWiki.pm you'll see the concept I was looking at.
+I added an "add_depends_spec()" function that adds a dependency on the pagespec passed to it. If the set of matched pages
+changes, then the dependent page is rebuilt. At the moment the implementation uses the same hack used by map and inline -
+just add all the pages that currently exist as traditional content dependencies.
+
+> As I note below, a problem with this approach is that it has to try
+> matching the pagespec against every page, redundantly with the work done
+> by the plugin. (But there are ways to avoid that redundant matching.)
+> --[[Joey]]
+
+Getting back to commenting on your proposal:
+
+Just talking about the definition of a "presence dependency" for the moment, and ignoring implementation. Is a
+"presence dependency" supposed to cause an update when a page disappears? I assume so. Is a presence dependency
+supposed to cause an update when a pages existence hasn't changed, but it no longer matches the pagespec.
+(e.g. you use `created_before(test_page)` in a pagespec, and there was a page, `new_page`, that was created
+after `test_page`. `new_page` will not match the spec. Now we'll delete and then re-create `test_page`. Now
+`new_page` will match the spec, and yet `new_page` itself hasn't changed. Nor has its 'presence' - it was present
+before and it is present now. Should this cause a re-build of any page that has a 'presence' dependency on the spec?
+
+> Yes, a presence dep will trigger when a page is added, or removed.
+
+> Your example is valid.. but it's also not handled right by normal,
+> (content) dependencies, for the same reasons. Still, I think I've
+> addressed it with the pagespec influence stuff below. --[[Joey]]
+
+I think that is another version of the problem you encountered with meta-data.
+
+In the longer term I was thinking we'd have to introduce a concept of 'internal pagespec dependencies'. Note that I'm
+defining 'internal' pagespec dependencies differently to the pagespec dependencies I defined above. Perhaps an example:
+If you had a pagespec that was `created_before(test_page)`, then you could list all pages created before `test_page`
+with a `map` directive. The map directive would add a pagespec dependency on `created_before(test_page)`.
+Internally, there would be a second page-spec parsing function that discovers which pages a given pagespec
+depends on. As well as the function `match_created_before()`, we'd have to add a new function `depend_created_before()`.
+This new function would return a list of pages, which when any of them change, the output of `match_created_before()`
+would change. In this example, it would just return `test_page`.
+
+These lists of dependent pages could just be concatenated for every `match_...()` function in a pagespec - you can ignore
+the boolean formula aspects of the pagespec for this. If a content dependency were added on these pages, then I think
+the correct rebuilds would occur.
+
+In all, this is a surprisingly difficult problem to solve perfectly. Consider the following case:
+
+PageA.mdwn:
+
+> [ShavesSelf]
+
+PageB.mdwn
+
+> Doesn't shave self.
+
+ShavedByBob.mdwn:
+
+> [!include pages="!link(ShavesSelf)"]
+
+Does ShavedByBob.mdwn include itself?
+
+(Yeah - in IkiWiki currently links are included by include, but the idea holds. I had a good example a while back, but I can't think of it right now.)
+
+sigh.
+
+-- [[Will]]
+
+> I have also been thinking about some sort of analysis pass over pagespecs
+> to determine what metadata, pages, etc they depend on. It is indeed
+> tricky to do. More thoughts on influence lists a bit below. --[[Joey]]
+
----
-Link dependencies:
+### Link dependencies
* `add_depends($page, $spec, links => 1, presence => 1)`
adds a links + presence dependency.
triggered on.
[[done]]
+----
+
+### the removal problem
+
+So far I have not addressed fixing the removal problem (which Will
+discusses above).
+
+Summary of problem: A has a dependency on a pagespec such as
+"bugs/* and !link(done)". B currently matches. Then B is updated,
+in a way that makes A's dependency not match it (ie, it links to done).
+Now A is not updated, because ikiwiki does not realize that it
+depended on B before.
+
+This was worked around to fix [[bugs/inline_page_not_updated_on_removal]]
+by inline and map adding explicit dependencies on each page that appears
+on them. Then a change to B triggers the explicit dep. While this works,
+it's 1) ugly 2) probably not implemented by all plugins that could
+be affected by this problem (ie, linkmap) and 3) is most of the reason why
+we grew the complication of `depends_simple`.
+
+One way to fix this is to include with each dependency, a list of pages
+that currently match it. If the list changes, the dependency is triggered.
+
+Should be doable, but may involve more work than
+currently. Consider that a dependency on "bugs/*" currently
+is triggered by just checking until *one* page is found to match it.
+But to store the list, *every* page would have to be tried against it.
+Unless the list can somehow be intelligently updated, looking at only the
+changed pages.
+
+----
+
+Found a further complication in presence dependencies. Map now uses
+presence dependencies when adding its explicit dependencies on pages. But
+this defeats the purpose of the explicit dependencies! Because, now,
+when B is changed to not match a pagespec, the A's presence dep does
+not fire.
+
+I didn't think things through when switching it to use presence
+dependencies there. But, if I change it to use full dependencies, then all
+the work that was done to allow map to use presence dependencies for its
+main pagespec is for naught. The map will once again have to update
+whenever *any* content of the page changes.
+
+This points toward the conclusion that explicit dependencies, however they
+are added, are not the right solution at all. Some other approach, such as
+maintaining the list of pages that match a dependency, and noticing when it
+changes, is needed.
+
+----
+
+### pagespec influence lists
+
+I'm using this term for the concept of a list of pages whose modification
+can indirectly influence what pages a pagespec matches.
+
+#### Examples
+
+* The pagespec "created_before(foo)" has an influence list that contains foo.
+ The removal or (re)creation of foo changes what pages match it.
+
+* The pagespec "foo" has an empty influence list. This is because a
+ modification/creation/removal of foo directly changes what the pagespec
+ matches.
+
+* The pagespec "*" has an empty influence list, for the same reason.
+ Avoiding including every page in the wiki into its influence list is
+ very important!
+
+* The pagespec "title(foo)" has an influence list that contains every page
+ that currently matches it. A change to any matching page can change its
+ title. Why is that considered an indirect influence? Well, the pagespec
+ might be used in a presence dependency, and so its title changing
+ would not directly affect the dependency.
+
+* The pagespec "backlink(index)" has an influence list
+ that contains index (because a change to index changes the backlinks).
+
+* The pagespec "link(done)" has an influence list that
+ contains every page that it matches. A change to any matching page can
+ remove a link and make it not match any more, and so the list is needed
+ due to the removal problem.
+
+#### Low-level Calculation
+
+One way to calculate a pagespec's influence would be to
+expand the SuccessReason and FailReason objects used and returned
+by `pagespec_match`. Make the objects be created with an
+influence list included, and when the objects are ANDed or ORed
+together, combine the influence lists.
+
+That would have the benefit of allowing just using the existing `match_*`
+functions, with minor changes to a few of them to gather influence info.
+
+But does it work? Let's try some examples:
+
+Consider "bugs/* and link(done) and backlink(index)".
+
+Its influence list contains index, and it contains all pages that the whole
+pagespec matches. It should, ideally, not contain all pages that link
+to done. There are a lot of such pages, and only a subset influence this
+pagespec.
+
+When matching this pagespec against a page, the `link` will put the page
+on the list. The `backlink` will put index on the list, and they will be
+anded together and combined. If we combine the influences from each
+successful match, we get the right result.
+
+Now consider "bugs/* and link(done) and !backlink(index)".
+
+It influence list is the same as the previous one, even though a term has
+been negated. Because a change to index still influences it, though in a
+different way.
+
+If negation of a SuccessReason preserves the influence list, the right
+influence list will be calculated.
+
+Consider "bugs/* and (link(done) or backlink(index))"
+and "bugs/* and (backlink(index) or link(done))'
+
+Its clear that the influence lists for these are identical. And they
+contain index, plus all matching pages.
+
+When matching the first against page P, the `link` will put P on the list.
+The OR needs to be a non-short-circuiting type. (In perl, `or`, not `||` --
+so, `pagespec_translate` will need to be changed to not use `||`.)
+Given that, the `backlink` will always be evalulated, and will put index
+onto the influence list. If we combine the influences from each
+successful match, we get the right result.
+
+> This is implemented, seems to work ok. --[[Joey]]
+
+#### High-level Calculation and Storage
+
+Calculating the full influence list for a pagespec requires trying to match
+it against every page in the wiki.
+
+I'd like to avoid doing such expensive matching redundantly. So add a
+`pagespec_match_all`, which returns a list of all pages in the whole
+wiki that match the pagespec, and also adds the pagespec as a dependency,
+and while it's at it, calculates and stores the influence list.
+
+It could have an optional sort parameter, and limit parameter, to control
+how many items to return and the sort order. So when inline wants to
+display the 10 newest, only the influence lists for those ten are added.
+
+If `pagespec_match_depends` can be used by all plugins, then great,
+influences are automatically calculated, no extra work needs to be done.
+
+If not, and some plugins still need to use `pagespec_match_list` or
+`pagespec_match`, and `add_depends`, then I guess that `add_depends` can do
+a slightly more expensive influence calculation.
+
+Bonus: If `add_depends` is doing an influence calculation, then I can remove
+the nasty hack it currently uses to decide if a given pagespec is safe to use
+with an existence or links dependency.
+
+Where to store the influence list? Well, it appears that we can just add
+(content) dependencies for each item on the list, to the page's
+regular list of simple dependencies. So, the data stored ends up looking
+just like what is stored today by the explicit dependency hacks. Except,
+it's calculated more smartly, and is added automatically.
+
+> I've implemented influence calculation in `add_depends`. As expected,
+> it means rather a lot more work, and makes some things much slower.
+> Optimisation via `pagespec_match_depends` next.. --[[Joey]]
+
+#### Influence types
+
+Note that influences can also have types, same as dependency types.
+For example, "backlink(foo)" has an influence of foo, of type links.
+"created_before(foo)" also is influenced by foo, but it's a presence
+type. Etc.