Open amatya-aditya opened 3 months ago
Thanks for the suggestion. This would indeed be a good feature, but only optionally I think. Some contexts and even policies do not allow or discourage the complementary relationship. On operational note, even if the bidirectional linking makes sense, not that there is a hidden long-term maintenance cost to the redundancy: it makes things like splitting a node up into subnodes quite a bit more work as you have to update lots of links in both ways. Note that this redundancy is not necessary to track the flow through the graph: implicit reflected complementary relationships should be picked up automatically. But I think adding a button to "create 2-way relationship" would be useful.
Making it optional would be effective since various digital note-takers have distinct methods of linking their notes. For me, it would be beneficial as I primarily take academic notes, starting with a parent research note that branches out into various child notes. While a templater could be used for automation, I would favor a native button within the bearing itself for the greater good. I am looking forward to this feature. Thank you for your consideration.
I am curious, however, as to what purpose the redundancy in the bidirectional linking serves? I too have subsystems of research notes in parent/child relationships, and one the reasons to adopt a treeview that "sees" the complementary relationship implicitly was to avoid the overhead of the bidirectional linking, both for its fragility (higher probability of broken links) and its tedium.
In order to automate things and use the bearings to its full power, I think it would be great if it could silently add parent relationships in frontmatter child note at the same time when we add entry-children in parent in the note.