Ability to customize existing types

Describe the solution you’d like

After using types and sets for the past hour I am really missing the ability to slightly customize built-in types with my own relations. I then have to replicate this built-in type with my own, just to add a simple relation.

I understand you don’t want users removing relations from ‘store types’ as this might interfere with future plans of having people share types and ‘apps’ within the AnyType environment. But I don’t see why adding relations would be an issue.



There is a way you can add relations:

You can add a relation to your ‘Type’- Set and you will be able to fill it and see it as suggested in all relations in object.

("+ New Relation")

Now all the Book Objects have a relation ‘Composer’.

Did you mean this ?

I agree with the fact that it will be awesome to edit completely existing types.

I saw that it was possible to add additionals relations to existings build-in types, but we can’t for example change the name of an existing relationship (for example to have it in our native language). Yes we can create new relationships and hide the existing ones, but it seems not to be something very clean.

Another thing I miss is to have the ability to delete (or hide) existing template. When you create an page template for a type, you will be asked everytime you want to create an object to choose between you custom template, and the original Anytype one. There will be less friction if you can delete/hide all Anytype classic templates, and only have the one you actually use.


@Michael Oh yes, that seems to be possible. Thank you for the info!

That being said, it still isn’t really the same. These relations are still not part of the type, they’re merely suggested. So I would hope that could be changed, as now it feels like the built-in types are quite limited and I find myself creating other types that are mostly the same as the built-in ones.

@phileas I agree, it would be nice to be able to change the name of existing relationships (and types). Your other suggestion also seems very interesting to me. Maybe it would be best to create a separate feature request for this?