Consider validating inline references to symbols

[Earthcomputer]

That is, for example, stuff like `Item.Settings`, which in a recent PR I had to correct from `Items.Settings`. Classes, methods and fields would need to be validated, with different formatting options to show them with or without their owning class and method parameters. You would need a way of marking which formatting style you want, and a way of differentiating them inline code blocks which should not be validated.

Doing this validation would have the following advantages:

• Being able to catch typos and incorrect references.
• Making the tutorials easier to maintain when the game or mappings update.
• Making auto-remapping of tutorials (e.g. to Mojmap) more possible in the future.

[modmuss50]

Yes, I agree. On the the wiki we had a custom plugin that allowed you to use the intermediary name, I dont think this was heavily used as its somewhat a pain to provide the intermediary name.

[Earthcomputer]

I think it would be better to simply provide the name in Yarn, and validate that it exists. Remapping is a job for the future and it's possible to remap from Yarn. Just like writing mods, writing the tutorials in intermediary would be a massive pain, with a time investment much more than simply having to update the Yarn names when they change every now and then. The only pain point is that classes and method names would need to specify their packages and parameters respectively, at least if they're otherwise ambiguous.