Sorry, I just thought it was funny but I guess not. I've personally never had a problem to say e.g "the transcluding tiddler" vs "the transcluded tiddler".
<:-) On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 10:53:13 AM UTC+1 [email protected] wrote: > @Mat > > Why LOL? > > Normally, every new term has to be explained when it is introduced. What's > wrong with > > *Transclusion* is generally the inclusion of the content of a tiddler > into another tiddler by reference. The tiddler that's referencing another > tiddler is called the *transcluder*, the tiddler (content) that is being > included is called the *transcludee*. > > That would be it. > > Surely, these two new terms are not stranger than the term *tiddler*, > that has also to be explained. But once you have grokked it, you understand > it everywhere. > > -Reinhard > > On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 9:14:43 AM UTC+1 Mat wrote: > >> LOL! Sure, but you're running the risk of having to explain the term >> which kind of nullifies the point... ;-) >> >> <:-) >> >> On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 8:57:24 AM UTC+1 [email protected] >> wrote: >> >>> When talking about transclusions, it's a little cumbersome to talk about >>> *the >>> tiddler that's doing the transclusion* and *the tiddler that's being >>> transcluded*. >>> >>> So, if it has been done before or elsewhere, may I suggest the two terms >>> >>> *Transcluder* (the tiddler that's doing the transclusion) >>> *Transcludee* (the tiddler that's being transcluded) >>> >>> patterned af *employer* and *employee*? >>> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/7c642eba-fa1c-4d9c-8ea2-cb0e4cc73d99n%40googlegroups.com.
