[Pmwiki-users] including parts of a page, once again
Patrick R. Michaud
pmichaud
Fri Jul 16 05:59:57 CDT 2004
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 11:00:17AM +0200, Thomas -Balu- Walter wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 02:06:25PM -0600, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> > [:include SomePage:] include all of SomePage
> > [:include SomePage lines=10 :] lines 1-10
>
> What about "lines=..10"? I think this is more logical compared e.g. with
> "lines=5.." and "lines=5..10"
"lines=..10" works also--I didn't list every possible combination because
it would've made the article too long for not much gain.
> > [:include SomePage paras=2..5 :] paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5
>
> No "paras=5.."?
"paras=5.." works also.
> > [:include SomePage #a..#b :] from #a up to #b
> > [:include SomePage#a#b :] from #a to #b
>
> Difference to "SomePage #a..#b"? Does this one include #b?
No, there's no difference--just forgot the word "up" in the second
case. SomePage#a#b is just shorthand for SomePage#a..#b.
> > [:include SomePage##a :] from beginning to #a
> > [:include SomePage#a# :] from #a to end of page
>
> I really think those are confusing... didn't we have them just a few
> lines above already?
These actually end up being an artifact of the implementation and weren't
designed. We don't have to document them.
> > [:include SomePage fs :] include SomePage up to the full stop
> > [:include SomePage #a fs :] section #a up to the full stop
> > [:include SomePage paras=2 fs :] 2 paragraphs up to the full stop
>
> Why is this better than using another #b anchor?
Because in the text a fullstop sequence (`.) is shorter to type and
less intrusive than an anchor [[#someanchor]]. Plus, we may want a
way to say "excerpt to this point" which has a separate meaning from
"end this section".
Pm
More information about the pmwiki-users
mailing list