->> Secondly, it seems that there are two types of dependency, and ikiwiki
->> currently only handles one of them. The first type is "Rebuild this
->> page when any of these other pages changes" - ikiwiki handles this.
->> The second type is "rebuild this page when set of pages referred to by
->> this pagespec changes" - ikiwiki doesn't seem to handle this. I
->> suspect that named pagespecs would make that second type of dependency
->> more important. I'll try to come up with a good example. -- [[Will]]
-
->>> Hrm, I was going to build an example of this with backlinks, but it
->>> looks like that is handled as a special case at the moment (line 458 of
->>> render.pm). I'll see if I can breapk
->>> things another way. Fixing this properly would allow removal of that special case. -- [[Will]]
-
->>>> I can't quite understand the distinction you're trying to draw
->>>> between the two types of dependencies. Backlinks are a very special
->>>> case though and I'll be suprised if they fit well into pagespecs.
->>>> --[[Joey]]
-
->>>>> The issue is that the existential pagespec matching allows you to build things that have similar
->>>>> problems to backlinks.
->>>>> e.g. the following inline:
-
- \[[!inline pages="define(~done, link(done)) and link(~done)" archive=yes]]
-
->>>>> includes any page that links to a page that links to done. Now imagine I add a new link to 'done' on
->>>>> some random page somewhere - a page which some other page links to which didn't previously get included - the set of pages accepted by the pagespec, and hence the set of
->>>>> pages inlined, will change. But, there is no dependency anywhere on the page that I altered, so
->>>>> ikiwiki will not rebuild the page with the inline in it. What is happening is that the page that I altered affects
->>>>> the set of pages matched by the pagespec without itself being matched by the pagespec, and hence included in the dependency list.
-
->>>>> To make this work well, I think you need to recognise two types of dependencies for each page (and no
->>>>> special cases for particular types of links, eg backlinks). The first type of dependency says, "The content of
->>>>> this page depends upon the content of these other pages". The `add_depends()` in the shortcuts
->>>>> plugin is of this form: any time the shortcuts page is edited, any page with a shortcut on it
->>>>> is rebuilt. The inline plugin also needs to add dependencies of this form to detect when the inlined
->>>>> content changes. By contrast, the map plugin does not need a dependency of this form, because it
->>>>> doesn't actually care about the content of any pages, just which pages it needs to include (which we'll handle next).
-
->>>>> The second type of dependency says, "The content of this page depends upon the exact set of pages matched
->>>>> by this pagespec". The first type of dependency was about the content of some pages, the second type is about
->>>>> which pages get matched by a pagespec. This is the type of dependency tracking that the map plugin needs.
->>>>> If the set of pages matched by map pagespec changes, then the page with the map on it needs to be rebuilt to show a different list of pages.
->>>>> Inline needs this type of dependency as well as the previous type - This type handles a change in which pages
->>>>> are inlined, the previous type handles a change in the content of any of those pages. Shortcut does not need this type of
->>>>> dependency. Most of the places that use `add_depends()` seem to need this type of dependency rather than the first type.
-
->>>>> Implementation Details: The first type of dependency can be handled very similarly to the current
->>>>> dependency system. You just need to keep a list of pages that the content depends upon. You could
->>>>> keep that list as a pagespec, but if you do this you might want to check that the pagespec doesn't change,
->>>>> possibly by adding a dependency of the second type along with the dependency of the first type.
-
->>>>> The second type of dependency is a little more tricky. For each page, we'd need a list of pagespecs that
->>>>> the page depended on, and for each pagespec you'd want to store the list of pages that currently match it.
->>>>> On refresh, you'd need to check each pagespec to see if the set of pages that match it has changed, and if
->>>>> that set has changed, then rebuild the dependent page(s). Oh, and for this second type of dependency, I
->>>>> don't think you can merge pagespecs. If I wanted to know if either "\*" or "link(done)" changes, then just checking
->>>>> to see if the set of pages matched by "\* or link(done)" changes doesn't work.
-
->>>>> The current system works because even though you usually want dependencies of the second type, the set of pages
->>>>> referred to by a pagespec can only change if one of those pages itself changes. i.e. A dependency check of the
->>>>> first type will catch a dependency change of the second type with current pagespecs.
->>>>> This doesn't work with backlinks, and it doesn't work with existential matching. Backlinks are currently special-cased. I don't know
->>>>> how to special-case existential matching - I suspect you're better off just getting the dependency tracking right.
-
->>>>> I also tried to come up with other possible solutions: e.g. can we find the dependencies for a pagespec? That
->>>>> would be the set of pages where a change on one of those pages could lead to a change in the set of pages matched by the pagespec.
->>>>> For old-style pagespecs without backlinks, the dependency set for a pagespec is the same as the set of pages the pagespec matches.
->>>>> Unfortunately, with existential matching, the set of pages that each
->>>>> pagespec depends upon can quickly become "*", which is not very useful. -- [[Will]]
+>>>> Perhaps the thing to do is to have a `clear_defines()`
+>>>> function, then merging `A` and `B` yields `(A) or (clear_defines() and (B))`
+>>>> That would deal with both the cases where `A` and `B` differently
+>>>> define `~foo` as well as with the case where `A` defines `~foo` while
+>>>> `B` uses it to refer to a literal page.
+>>>> --[[Joey]]
+
+>>>>> I don't think this will work with the new patch, and I don't think it was needed with the old one.
+>>>>> Under the old patch, pagespec_makeperl() generated a string of unevaluated, self-contained, perl
+>>>>> code. When a new named pagespec was defined, a recursive call was made to get the perl code
+>>>>> for the pagespec, and then that code was used to add something like `$params{specFuncs}->{name} = sub {recursive code} and `
+>>>>> to the result of the calling function. This means that at pagespec testing time, when this code is executed, the
+>>>>> specFuncs hash is built up as the pagespec is checked. In the case of the 'or' used above, later redefinitions of
+>>>>> a named pagespec would have redefined the specFunc at the right time. It should have just worked. However...
+
+>>>>> Since my original patch, you started using closures for security reasons (and I can see the case for that). Unfortunately this
+>>>>> means that the generated perl code is no longer self-contained - it needs to be evaluated in the same closure it was generated
+>>>>> so that it has access to the data array. To make this work with the recursive call I had two options: a) make the data array a
+>>>>> reference that I pass around through the pagespec_makeperl() functions and have available when the code is finally evaluated
+>>>>> in pagespec_translate(), or b) make sure that each pagespec is evaluated in its correct closure and a perl function is returned, not a
+>>>>> string containing unevaluated perl code.
+
+>>>>> I went with option b). I did it in such a way that the hash of specfuncs is built up at translation time, not at execution time. This
+>>>>> means that with the new code you can call specfuncs that get defined out of order:
+
+ ~test and define(~test, blah)
+
+>>>>> but it also means that using a simple 'or' to join two pagespecs wont work. If you do something like this:
+
+ ~test and define(~test, foo) and define(~test, baz)
+
+>>>>> then the last definition (baz) takes precedence.
+>>>>> In the process of writing this I think I've come up with a way to change this back the way it was, still using closures. -- [[Will]]
+
+>>> My [[remove-pagespec-merge|should_optimise_pagespecs]] branch has now
+>>> solved all this by deleting the offending function :-) --[[smcv]]
+
+