Small improvements to add additional context/explanations

[ejseqera]

Optional enhancement: Added additional context to the body and notes to provide clearer explanations around concepts such as tuples and the handling of accessory files.

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for nextflow-training ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	454c7b0
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/nextflow-training/deploys/673a740de7d4420008f0195a
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-461--nextflow-training.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

[mribeirodantas]

I agree it's an improvement, but the ending worries me a bit. They will be converted into channels implicitly so I think there should be a better way to express the last mention of channels in the new version. What do you think?

[pinin4fjords]

Yeah, I'm with @mribeirodantas on this one. I actually don't like the bare file() syntax, because of the implicit channel creation I don't think there's a principled reason to use it (besides maybe if you want to include the same file in multiple channels while initialising it once). So I disagree even with the original text - it's just a laziness/ convenience thing.

I'd rather we encouraged explicit channel creation, because I think it's easier to read.

[ejseqera]

I see your points. I believe that there’s room to provide more context for newer developers about when and why to use the file() syntax in scenarios like this. How about reframing it like this:

"While main data inputs are streamed dynamically through channels, there are two approaches for handling accessory files. The recommended approach is to create explicit channels, which makes data flow clearer and more consistent. Alternatively, the file() function to create variables can be used for simpler cases, particularly when you need to reference the same file in multiple processes - though be aware this still creates channels implicitly. For example: ..."

This way, we emphasize explicit channel creation as the best practice while still introducing file() as an alternative for convenience. Do you think this balances the guidance appropriately?