How about [perl6://A6]? Is that acceptable? Can you review my patch? ;-)

Update: demerphq recommends I post the code here. Note that in the original code, this has to be one line, but, in the interests of readability, I'm going to insert some whitespace.

my ($type,$num) = $nodeloc =~ /^([aAeEsS])(\d{1,2})$/;
if (defined $type and defined $num)
{
  $type = uc $type;
  $num = sprintf q[%02d], $num;
  my %map = (
    A=>['apo', 'Apocalypse'],
    E=>['exo', 'Exogesis'],
    S=>['syn', 'Synopsis']
  );
  $title ||=$map{$type}[1] . ' ' . $num;
  return qq[<a href="http://dev.perl.org/perl6/doc/$map{$type}[0]/$typ
+e$num.html">$title</a>];
  }
  else
  {
    return qq([$prefix://$nodeloc])
  }
}
[download]

Update 2: FYI, for those non-pmdevils who can't find out what the variables are. Although it should be obvious, $nodeloc is the part after the ://, but before the |, while $title is the part after the |.

Update 3: My submitted patch has changed to [aes://s03]. I am not that into perl 6 (I have a few questions which I'm likely to post about perl 6 when I get the time to look at it more closely) and can accept that "aes" is an accepted abbreviation here. That said, part of the point of these links are ways to make it easy to write nodes. That would include "shortcuts" such as lazily ignoring case, or skipping the leading zero.

I don't want to go away from using the [$prefix://$nodeloc] convention if only that it's way more work (beyond my skills as a pmdevil anyway), and I'd rather see something than nothing. As for the comparison to perlop - using [perlop] gets you a link to out-of-date documentation vs using [doc://perlop]. Thus, we're sticking to that, and getting [aes://s03] to be the link (which is more likely to be up-to-date) rather than [S03] (which is more likely to fall out of date when no one keeps it updated).

I don't think "perl6" is the proper tag to associate with this. It fits somewhat now, just like the person who registers at PerlMonks as "perlnewbie", because when you say "perl6" one of the most common responses (at this time) is concern about the emerging design of Perl6. Ten years from now, will people expect "perl6://" to link to the old hash-out-the-design documents for Perl6? Because ten years from now we'll still be serving nodes that use "perl6://" links.

Unfortunately, I don't have an alternate solution that I find compelling. I guess ysth's suggestion of synopsis://xx, apocalypse://xx, and exegesis://xx is less worrisome for me, though I suspect we'll get a lot of spelling questions / mistakes. Perhaps adding aliases for apoc://, exeg://, and synop:// fixes that?

Update: I also think that linking to sections within each document (they are fairly large) is particularly important here. Unfortunately, I don't think there exists a committedly long-lived hosted copy that has appropriately easy-to-link-to sections and will be kept up-to-date.

- tye        

I agree with tye that "perl6" is not the right scheme. I suggested "aes" for a reason. "AES" is a very common way to identify the whole of apocalypses, exegeses and synopses. As are "[AES]\d\d" to identify specific documents. "S03" is as normal in Perl 6 jargon as "perlop" is in Perl 5 (it even describes the same thing: operators). It's hardly ever called "S3", "syn 3" or "synopsis 3", except by people new to the Perl 6 world.

Because "/^[AES]\d\d$/" is such a specific pattern, and because it has achieved the same status as "perlop" in normal usage, I think this should not be changed. Because of the specific pattern, they can perhaps be made direct links, without scheme, so linking them doesn't disturb the text flow in the source.

Juerd # { site => 'juerd.nl', plp_site => 'plp.juerd.nl', do_not_use => 'spamtrap' }

"AES" is a very common way to identify the whole of apocalypses, exegeses and synopses.

I've never seen that usage. Super searching for it I find few matches, the most recent of which (outside of this thread) is "use Blowfish or AES or some other cryptographic standard".

Because "/^[AES]\d\d$/" is such a specific pattern, and because it has achieved the same status as "perlop" in normal usage

Never seen that either. Doing an enhanced super search for that pattern finds that it has never been used for that purpose at PerlMonks in the last year except in this thread.

And I doubt in 10 years "A03" will immediately trigger the proper memory while "apocalypse 3" probably will.

I'm sure you hang out in some place where the usage is as you say. But if I saw "S03" at PerlMonks, I'd have no idea what it was supposed to mean and I bet (based on data) that many, nay most, PerlMonks visitors would be as lost.

The fact that [grep] skips searching has had its problems and so is at least partially an example of something to avoid.

I don't see myself wanting to link to a whole apocalypse much. I see myself being much more likely to want to link to a specific part of an apocalypse. At this point I doubt the official hosts of these documents have sufficiently addressed this desire, but I'll let someone else investigate and report if they care to.

Elsewhere you mentioned hosting the A, E, and S at PerlMonks (don't forget whatever the Pugs things are called). This was already discussed and nixed by Larry himself.

- tye        

As for the comparison to perlop - using perlop gets you a link to out-of-date documentation vs using perlop.

Yes, that's extremely hateful too. However, the out-of-date documentation at least now links to where more recent documentation can be found. (This should IMO be combined with complete removal of the old contents.)

Juerd # { site => 'juerd.nl', plp_site => 'plp.juerd.nl', do_not_use => 'spamtrap' }

If you want a linktype then it has to match with the type://value|string syntax.

aes:// does that, and Axx isn't weird either, since we already have things like perlop and unpack. I can even imagine mirroring the documents locally, to keep them in a PM layout -- with banner.

Next you havent specified where these links are supposed to map to.

Clearly I overestimated you.

Unless one of the other gods feels like doing your homework for you there is nothing to be done from this request.

It's a request, not a patch. I'm not going to be the one to do the work, indeed, but I'm also not forcing anyone to do so.

It's a request. Again: a request. If you don't want to do it for whichever reason, then don't do it.

I really did overestimate you. Sorry.

I shouldn't have brought this up for discussion, and should have went ahead with programmatically creating nodes of these titles, with simple links in them to the documents. This kind of useless, unproductive, mud throwing and inflammatory discussion really is a big waste of time. For this too, I am sorry. Consider it never requested.

The worst thing is that deep inside, I already knew this was going to happen, and I ignored that, hoping that something had changed.

Juerd, check out Personalizing the linkers which is a much better version of a similar equest to the one you made, but actually contains sufficient info that an implementation was put into place almost immediately. The only thing you overestimated is my knowledge the locations of the perl6 docs and desire to go hunt the required url schemes down. OTOH, you were lucky that Tanktalus was a little more motivated.

The point here is that requests like this should be thought out when they are posted. Would it have been that hard to actually have included the links you wanted? Anyway, i guess my tone wasn't that great in the node. If so I apologise, its just I guess i expect someone clever and an old site hand like yourself to provide a better spec. Cheers.

---
$world=~s/war/peace/g

The only thing you overestimated is my knowledge the locations of the perl6 docs and desire to go hunt the required url schemes down.

No. I also overestimated your question asking skills, and your friendliness.

The point here is that requests like this should be thought out when they are posted.

A request is a request. It's not an order, it's not an item for your to do list. Specifications can in fact wait until consensus about more superficial issues, like the syntax of the link, has been reached. I am offended by your implication that I did not think it out. If I knew all the details involved, that would mean I would be pmdev, and I had probably supplied a patch. But I am mostly ignorant of the black magic that drives Perl Monks. As an ordinary user, I expect to not have to care about details, and that the more involved people will ask for the information they need. (Rather than complain bitterly about its inavailability.)

If I say: "It's hot. Let's get some ice cream, or otherwise a cold drink.", would you then respond: "Ice cream does not go well with my diet. Besides, your proposal lacks definition of where to get ice cream and which ice cream to get. You cannot expect me to be motivated."? Because that's the way I read your reply.

There is a HUGE difference between "You have missed some essential parts out of your request ... it won't happen ... it's a non starter ... there is nothing to be done from this request" and "For this to work we need more information, ...".

Would it have been that hard to actually have included the links you wanted?

No, it would have been very easy. However, I was expecting some discussion over to which exact URL to link (as there are several), or whether maybe mirroring the information on this site would be a good idea. The actual URLs are the least important information. Unless, of course, you see the request as a work order than needs implementation without further discussion. But I am not your boss, and I actually do expect the input of multiple people before anything is done, because I acknowledge that I cannot possibly think of the perfect solution all by myself. The category is called PerlMonks Discussion. I expect a root node to initiate discussion, not to directly initiate any action.

i expect someone clever and an old site hand like yourself to provide a better spec.

Specs are for a later stadium, and that's good. What would have come of Perl 6 if Larry Wall came with the specification (the synopses) before suggesting that the community create a new Perl? It would have incorporated the thoughts of only one man, wouldn't be very flexible, and support for it would not have been as great. It would indeed have sped up implementation, but sometimes speed is no issue. With links to Perl 6 design documents, I don't think anyone wants them yesterday. There hasn't been an easy way to do this for years, and it can easily wait a few more days or weeks without anyone getting upset over their nonexistence.

Juerd # { site => 'juerd.nl', plp_site => 'plp.juerd.nl', do_not_use => 'spamtrap' }