Closed agarwal closed 8 years ago
Summary of our discussion : we keep the definition of has_link
as it is, because the main motivation for this function is to assert that a path will not change as a result of link resolution.
0fcfecdccbdff55350084e580c0dc9f94d81d74b adds documentation to explain the decision made in this issue, so now closing.
Since we added
Broken_link
, the meaning ofhas_link
is unclear. Do we want it to mean has non-broken link? If so, the current definition is still okay. However, maybeBroken_link
should count as a link too?Note this failed to arise earlier because of the use of wildcard patterns in
has_link
. We should be avoiding these as much as possible. (Though the one use-case in which I consider wildcard patterns valid is exactly this one, where the function inherently is about a single case. Problem here is that single case got turned into two, so they are always bad!)