I don't recall if we designed this, but thought i'd throw up my best memory/creation.

---

so it gets renamed?

  --Ethan McCutchen.....2013-04-03 21:33:53 +0000

---

This doesn't quite make sense to me yet.

---

Anyway, wouldn't the set pattern be snapshot+*right+*autoname ? It would be a little different than the type case, semantically, that is.

 

Let's say we include or link {{foo+snapshot}} or [[foo+snapshot]], we want to create a new card and increment the contents of a *autoname setting with each create of foo+snapshot. foo+snapshot can't actually be created or it would then exist and not trigger the new action on linking or put the "Add foo+snapshot" in place of the inclusion would not happen. Or maybe it could exists and the snapshot+*right+*autoname rule would keep it from really being created.

 

The tricky part is where to put the autoname value. I guess it could go in foo+snapshot and we would seed that from the value in the *right+*autoname rule when it didn't exist. You'd rename on create from foo+snapshot to foo+{{autoname value}}

 

What if you put {{+autoname value}} into foo+snapshot, then the raw view would naturally give the autoname value and core view (and views that derive from core) would get foo+0001 (incrementing, so the current one)