In particular, I am using the Map view to design relationships between objects. I want to use this relationship map to guide my code creation. Ideally, I’d like to use the (object)-relationship-(object) info in the map view to be translated into text that I could use to write my code
However, I do not think that particular “translation” happens in the outline view. Not sure how to do it.
While I am trying to figure it out, I figured I’d ask for help.
I’m guessing you’re talking about links? If so, look at the linkedTo() and linkedFrom() operators. Although links are only drawn in Map and Timeline views they can be interrogated via action code from any view.
To give beet advice it would help to have a bit more detail (screen grab perhaps?) of what you see and what aspects of that visualisation you want to capture/implement.
Hey Mark,
Thanks for getting back to me. I suppose I am talking about links. OK, so I’ll try those operators. I’d like to end up with basically a table of LinkedFrom(), LinkedTo() and Link name.
Here’s a sample Tinderbox file that collects the names of the inbound and outbound linked notes for a given note into a list (for each category) in the note, then adds that info to the text of each note.
You can revise this as you wish – if you need a table, then I would suggest using export templates to create CSV or Markdown-based tables.
I have been trying out the “Link Test” Tinderbox file that you kindly shared in this thread. In your post, you mentioned that the info would be added to the text of the notes, but I find that that info instead replaces the text of the notes and that every time I try to type anything in any of those notes, the text is instantaneously replaced by the info you spoke about. Am I doing something wrong? If so, could you please point me in the right direction? If not, could you please suggest how I would be able to append the info to the text of the notes? Thank you for your consideration.
You are right: this is a special case of the general question I ended up asking in that new thread: because my question in this thread was specifically directed to @PaulWalters, I thought that perhaps nobody else would feel entitled to answer and so I opened a new thread; my apologies for the confusion or if my assumption was incorrect. To avoid further duplication, I will reply to the answer you posted in that new thread directly there. Thank you.