Feat: Implement ability to create notes at new paths, Introduces the …

[soymh]

Hi
Previous PR has been closed due to heavy conflicts.

These commits introduce an update for group iteration methods and new directories file processing:
1-The {{#}} syntax in groups can now be used in conjugate with note creation: Using this syntax now allows for creating new notes based on the current loop number.
2-The new {{++@NoteName}} syntax now can be used to create notes in New Directories; Just by passing the desired New Dir into the Reference {{++@NoteName}} Node.

Hoping this new PR is ready to be merged.

Thanks!

[blindmansion]

Heyo! I took a look at the PR and I think its a good idea to handle creating the folder when needed. But I think it might be better to just add the new-path creation into the normal note-creation syntax, rather than add another syntax thing (ive accumulated too many syntax things to remember).

What do you think? Are there reasons you were thinking to have an explicit option to create the new path or just have the normal note creation logic make the path automatically?

Thanks!

[soymh]

Hey!

Yeah, I considered that too; before I made the commits; and I was going to make the syntax same as the normal note creation.
But, there is a situation where the user doesn't want to create notes at new paths... I mean, using this syntax, the user confirms the new path creation. Otherwise the user would encounter an error where the path doesn't exist.
If a workflow gives a dynamic name for a path, we would encounter two situations:
1-If the name exists, it makes the new note at that path.
2-If the name for the path doesn't exist, and the user Doesn't want to create that note at a new path, the workflow would just make a new directory at a new path. Hence the user gets an unwanted messy paths(In my own workflow I make pamphlets for each course, hence too many messy paths if the workflow makes a mistake!)

I don't no if I made the purpose clear :) but that is why I didn't made all new/existing path logic into one syntax.

Thanks to you too!

[cephalization]

That was my one argument in favor of your change too, I buy it personally, especially because LLMs are non-deterministic and can make a mess of your vault if you aren't careful

[blindmansion]

Makes sense to me! I'll merge this in tomorrow

[soymh]

Hey guys!
It's been ~3 weeks since the last message... So,in order to mark this PR as merged, I've been wondering if I should resolve the conflicts, or you guys yourselves handle them?
Thanks

[blindmansion]

Sorry for the wait here, my bad. I'll see about merging this in this weekend. Just need to make sure I understand that process a bit more.

[soymh]

Sorry for the wait here, my bad. I'll see about merging this in this weekend. Just need to make sure I understand that process a bit more.

Thank you

[blindmansion]

Underestimated holiday stuff a bit, but I'll definitely have time this coming weekend, for real this time lol