> They should! Why aren’t they!?!?! Somebody needs to make that a markdown extension. Every time you want to insert an indexed footnote, you type [^#]
Probably because there's no elegant way to support all the potential edge cases of that default behavior. For instance, if you introduced a reference with that format, you can't refer to it later - if you use the static number and it changes, you're now pointing to the wrong reference. So it reduces to using names, and the hassle of coming up with a name for each new link or footnote reduces to just using numbers - so the only thing that needs to be supported is manually named or numbered items.
The author correctly describes the ideal solution - a plugin that replaces unnamed links before saving or such - but likely fails to understand why that (as opposed to adding behavioral cruft to a markup language) is the correct level of abstraction for such a solution. Imagine if a project like wikipedia was riddled with the ambiguity of dozens of people's various attempts to wrangle the autonumbering to their writing.
Probably because there's no elegant way to support all the potential edge cases of that default behavior. For instance, if you introduced a reference with that format, you can't refer to it later - if you use the static number and it changes, you're now pointing to the wrong reference. So it reduces to using names, and the hassle of coming up with a name for each new link or footnote reduces to just using numbers - so the only thing that needs to be supported is manually named or numbered items.
The author correctly describes the ideal solution - a plugin that replaces unnamed links before saving or such - but likely fails to understand why that (as opposed to adding behavioral cruft to a markup language) is the correct level of abstraction for such a solution. Imagine if a project like wikipedia was riddled with the ambiguity of dozens of people's various attempts to wrangle the autonumbering to their writing.