Really hoping new update fixes:

[daplunk]

Would be handy if you could set an article to only link to content that exists under the same parent article. That would be handy for pre-made modules alot I would wager because that is going to be the situation where this comes up the most.

[AEIOU]

That's a really interesting idea. I don't think it's doable but I don't want to make bad assumptions. Maybe in the future we can limit auto-linking to the currently active story topic view.

[kbs666]

It's actually pretty simple.

C++ has been using namespaces to control name collisions for a couple of decades. Implementing the same basic idea wouldn't be too hard.

[Farling]

Originally Posted by kbs666

Implementing the same basic idea wouldn't be too hard.

I love this assumption :-)

[Avi]

Originally Posted by kbs666

It's actually pretty simple.

C++ has been using namespaces to control name collisions for a couple of decades. Implementing the same basic idea wouldn't be too hard.

The amount of raw data in even a large C program is insignificant compared to the amount and complexity of the data in even a simple Realm. (Now start gurgling please

I presume you would like to continue auto-linking to Monster articles? Or maybe only to a subset of them? what about Magic Items? Oh and that list of generic NPCs you hold in the world almanac? Is it in or out?
The list of options, sub-options and partial match scenarios is very large.

Oh and talking about C++, how many bugs and problems did you encounter due to #include issues: circular definitions, wrong functions from external libraries and more

So not so simple...

[wurzel]

Originally Posted by Avi

So not so simple...

As developers are, it is absolutely simple. When they start developing, after few hours they are 90% ready. That is where they stay for the next couple of months while they discover more and more unexpected problems. After a year they are "almost ready". That is the moment when they deem their work finished and release it to the public.

I met thousands of developers during my career. Strange enough they are all like that.

And somehow I have the impression LWD knows what I'm talking about.

[rob]

Regarding the assertion that namespaces would be simple, my response is simply: Sure, it's not hard if you want something that works extremely well for a couple specific use cases and fails utterly for the way the myriad GMs actually WANT to use Realm Works.

Programmers don't usually realize - want to accept? - that they are given a very strict framework and forced to adapt everything they do to operate within that rigid framework. That's the EXACT OPPOSITE of the way end-users think. They want something that adapts to how THEY operate. Yes, even the programmers out there have wildly different approaches to GMing and creating their worlds, and most of them would balk at the notion of having to conform to a very specific - and different - way of doing everything just to have namespaces.

To a significant degree, we successfully adapt to the way different users operate within Realm Works, as the product works extremely well for a very diverse range of GM approaches. Achieving that, however, is FRICKIN' HARD. With some regularity, programmers comment that we should do things X way, because that would make things easier. Typically, it would make things easier for that user and the way they want to work, but it would be at the expense of large contingents of other users who think and work differently. Programmers also have a habit of saying that doing X should be easy, but they overlook this fundamental problem that it's only easy if we force all users to conform to a very specific way of using the product, which users aren't going to respond well to.

Believe me, hearing this stuff from programmers never ceases to frustrate the hell out of me.

[rob]

All the above being said, I need to point out the following...

We introduced a new feature early this year that some of you seem not to have noticed. Within the automatic link detection dialog, every presented option shows its entire containment tree beneath it. In other words, for all practical purposes, every offered match shows you its "namespace". While this isn't perfect, and it still requires you to choose an item from the list instead of magically divining the particular "namespace" you happen to want at a given time, it's still PRETTY DARN CONVENIENT.

One other thing to consider. We introduced the concept of the "master scoping filter" a couple years ago (or more). The thinking was that it would provide the rough equivalent of namespaces. It allows the user to effectively define his own namespaces via tagging and then employ those namespaces at will. We even restricted automatic link detection to it at one point to give exactly what is being asked for above. Nobody used it. It seems nobody liked it, despite the versatility it provided. So it's quietly fallen off into a neglected corner, although it's still there for anyone who wants to play around with it. I think the official name is now "global filter", but it still behaves the same way it always has, except it no longer constrains automatic link detection. Feel free to check it out.

[Exmortis]

Originally Posted by kbs666

Why are you doing this manually?

Assuming the topics are named "room 12," "level 4," and "temple" the linker should find the topics just fine. Even if you use such generic names in lots of places you could use suffixes to make sure the linker finds the right ones.

1 - I am keeping the module as near to original as possible.
2 - Because more often than not the module refers to a room and number not the room name itself. Topics so far have never been named "room 12" or "area 14" yet the modules always reference them as thus.
3 - I would have to go and manually rename every "link referring text" to match the reference name, like "room 14" would have to be changed to "Pillhead's Quarters" anyway.

Manual is manual, either way there is manual adjustments to be made.

[Exmortis]

Originally Posted by rob

All the above being said, I need to point out the following...

We introduced a new feature early this year that some of you seem not to have noticed. Within the automatic link detection dialog, every presented option shows its entire containment tree beneath it. In other words, for all practical purposes, every offered match shows you its "namespace". While this isn't perfect, and it still requires you to choose an item from the list instead of magically divining the particular "namespace" you happen to want at a given time, it's still PRETTY DARN CONVENIENT.

For me? this is GOLD I tell you GOLD!!!

For massive works as ToEE or RToEE and now AtSL, this feature is absolutely essential. For my Vanguard: Saga of Heroes campaign conversion it has been a massive help.

There is mention of "not many kitchens". This made me laugh, I am on the 3rd of a 5 of the AtSL series, and I now have 7 kitchens, add that with 2 more parts yet to do, then maybe copied into a realm with say 3 or 4 more adventures?

The tree text for each link option is to me, far better then constrained namespace linking. I have text that spans my entire realm tree for links when done. About 75% of my links are auto, but rest are manual.

The best thing that comes from this thread is that Rob obviously understands the most important ideal behind RW. That is we are all different, with unique perspectives and ways of doing, what is essentially the same thing.

This is why RW is king.

Having said this, I love ideas being given, or other methods suggested by the community. Because like Rob, in life I have come to learn one infallible fact.

Everyone has something to teach everyone. Even the most veteran RW creator can learn from the greenest noob. I learn constantly from what I read, see and hear from everyone here. Sometimes its the comment by a person here that spawns a totally different idea, BUT with out that original comment it would have never come to fruition.

This is why such great things in history have come from discussion.

I know there are different ways to do what I am doing, and I know many would disagree with my idea of keeping things as original as possible and using manual links may not be how they would do it. I understand and get it. But I decided after some initial goofing and work I sacked, that if I was to archive my favorite adventures for import and conversion in the future, my initial entry would be as close to the original when ever possible.

Manual linking is supported, thus it should work. However it does seem, what ever little bug was crashing me is gone, I have yet to have a crash from setting manual links.