Could you not also use:
<$list filter="[{!!field-value}listed{!!field-name}]">
<>
cmari
On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 2:05:18 PM UTC-7, stevesuny wrote:
>
> Worked like a charm.
>
> OK, I would never have gotten to figure that out. It seems these generic
> \define sitting on top of macros or
Worked like a charm.
OK, I would never have gotten to figure that out. It seems these generic
\define sitting on top of macros or templates are very powerful and useful
addition to the general process of transclusion.
Thanks for your help! I'll post the results in another thread soon.
Yeah, you can't use {{!!field-name}} notation to substitute for a filter
operator suffix AFAIK. Use a macro to concatenate and form your filter
instead, like:
\define indirect() [field:$(field-name)$[$(field-value)$]]
<$vars field-name={{!!field-name}} field-value={{!!field-value}}>
<$list
Hi Steve,
Is there a typo here? In the filter you say field-value. But in your text
you say field-name. Which is it?
Mark
On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 12:56:07 PM UTC-7, stevesuny wrote:
>
> This filter works: <$list filter="[field:instructor{!!field-value}]">
>
> My tiddler has
4 matches
Mail list logo
