Re: [tw5] each operator: Is this a bug?

Thanks Jeremy! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tiddlywiki+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit

Re: [tw5] each operator: Is this a bug?

Hi Mohammad > On 9 Dec 2019, at 09:15, Mohammad wrote: > > does has a performance impact if we use [has[color]each[color]] instead of > [each[color]has[color]]? which is recommended? I haven’t timed it, but would expect `[each[color]has[color]]` to be quicker under most situations. > How we

Re: [tw5] each operator: Is this a bug?

post edited! Hi jeremy, Just for clarification 1. does it has a performance impact if we use [has[color]each[color]] instead of [each[color]has[color]]? which is recommended? 2. How we can separate tiddlers with no field from tiddlers have field but empty? --Mohammad -- You

Re: [tw5] each operator: Is this a bug?

Hi jeremy, Just for clarification 1. does has a performance impact if we use [has[color]each[color]] instead of [each[color]has[color]]? which is recommended? 2. How we can separate tiddlers with no field from tiddler have field but empty? --Mohammad On Monday, December 9,

Re: [tw5] each operator: Is this a bug?

Although the current behaviour is confusing, we can’t change it without breaking backwards compatibility. I’ve updated the docs to include a note pointing out a workaround: > Note that if a tiddler does not contain field <<.place F>>, it is treated as > if the value of the field were empty.

[tw5] each operator: Is this a bug?

On https://tiddlywiki.com/#each%20Operator%20(Examples) Look at the first example [each[color]] The output result show $:/library/sjcl.js But it has no color field! --Mohammad -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the