[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