From f3b86f4ae627e21db73d0803773a0493d87476ea Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: jmtd Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2021 06:51:22 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] addressing review comments; please take another look! --- doc/todo/pagespec_aliases.mdwn | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+) diff --git a/doc/todo/pagespec_aliases.mdwn b/doc/todo/pagespec_aliases.mdwn index bd64a5040..114ca3bef 100644 --- a/doc/todo/pagespec_aliases.mdwn +++ b/doc/todo/pagespec_aliases.mdwn @@ -211,3 +211,26 @@ or [[smcv]]?) or otherwise feed back on this? Thanks! — [[Jon]] (2018-09-25) > this works.) > > --[[smcv]] + +---- + +Thank you for the review (nearly a year ago, I've just noticed!). I've +added checks for the issues you outline above, and test coverage for all +those issues. +I've also decided to rename the plugin (back) to just "alias": +I mooted that right back when I started this but I was worried about +potential ambiguity. That was ten years ago and I think the concern has +prove unfounded. I've left the config key as `pagespec_aliases` though, +as that's one area I think its clearer. + +With regards `aliasname()` versus `alias(aliasname)`: +I've given this some thought. Pros and cons of that approach: it would be +a little uglier; you would not inadvertently clash with a PageSpec defined +elsewhere. However, I wonder if someone might actually *want* to define a +PageSpec this way that was the same as that defined by something else: Perhaps, +you have disabled a plugin that defined a PageSpec name and you want to substitute +what it would have expanded to with something else, for example. + +I will (after writing this) rebase my branch. Please take another look! + +*— [[Jon]], 2020-01-10* -- 2.39.2