direction (eg `index`, even though one could declare it as
`index/isindexof`).
+ > isindexof is not a very interesting relationship - it just clogs up
+ > the link-map, since the index is "the index of" all pages. I can't
+ > see any situation in which you'd want to do pagespec matching
+ > on it? --[[smcv]]
+
other verbs are symmetric, eg. `equivalent`, which need different treatment.
* "taglink" style directives
from the autotag and tagdir features). as there is a `\[[!taglink ...]]`
directive, there could be an analogous directive for every single directive.
+ > This is basically the traillink/trailitem duality, too.
+ > I'd be quite tempted to generalize to something like this:
+ >
+ > We can't fix [[!link blocks="bug123" text="Bug 123"]] until we do this.
+ >
+ > [[!hiddenlink owner="smcv"]]
+ >
+ > but perhaps that's too wordy?
+ >
+ > I think both trail and tag need their own special processing beyond the
+ > general case, but maybe not? --[[smcv]]
+
* implementation notes
the way pagespec hooks are implemented required some nasty perl tricks, for
ideal. a change in the pagespec declaration api (why not just `hook` like
everything else) would make the implementation cleaner.
+ > How about replacing `blockedby(bug*)` with `linktype(blockedby bug*)` or
+ > something? Then you'd only need one pseudo-hook. --[[smcv]]
+
* configuration location
i aimed for static configuration of the `block_names` in the setup file. this
consider what is in @links to be a representation of which hyperlinks are
there, and in this case, none are generated).
+ > taglink and traillink already count as wikilinks without generating
+ > any visible HTML. --[[smcv]]
+
implementation
==============