Last modified: 2011-03-13 18:04:54 UTC
In [http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5904 ER 5905] a shortcut for subst was suggested. The ER was rejected on technical grounds. I suggest an alternative syntax, using triple curly braces to indicate substitution. Thus {{foo}} would transclude template:foo and {{{fooo}}} would substitute it.
Too simple to confuse it with regular transclusion or template parameters. I would advise against it. What's the point in implementing a shortcut for substitution? Is "subst:" really all that difficult to type?
"Too difficult" is somewhat subjective, but yes, I find it a pain. Obviously the author of 5905 did as well :-) On the other hand, this is really just a symptom of a deeper problem -- there should not two kinds of templates to begin with. It's a pain to have to remember which should be subst and which shouldn't. If there is some good technical reason why some templates should be transcluded and others should be substituted, that information should be kept in one place (like in the template itself).
That's a different bug. See bug 2003. As for the feature request, it conflicts with parameter syntax ({{{foo}}} is the parameter named "foo" or substitution of the template named "foo"?), and even if it didn't, it would be syntax bloat in an already bloated syntax where we already have a perfectly acceptable and significantly more intuitive (even if longer to type) notation. WONTFIX.
