Ciao Thomas
That is a good example of the issue.
I agree that Erwan's tool is there, though underused. I don't use its
search much because the people who make things don't signal to it enough to
have the heft needed to bother. But its a Working Aggregator and if it were
used more it would
Via TW Community Search I found another interesting solution:
http://erwanm.github.io/tw-community-search/ =>
http://let.tiddlyspot.com/#RANDOM:GettingStarted%20RANDOM
Let, by Tobias Beer, selects random tiddlers via filters. (You could find Jed’s
solution there too. Mine is brand new so we
Ciao Mark S.
I agree with you.
I also want to add its an instance of the *Informational Chaos* we are
confronted with here over finding great things people have already created
you can't find without a PhD in Searchology.
The de-centralisation of TW has not, unfortunately, yet been properly
Ciao Thomas
That's neat! Between your & PMario's offerings I'm sure I can now move on
one way or another. So thanks!
Best wishes
Josiah
Thomas Elmiger wrote:
>
> I added a random integer generator to my rpn script. No leading zeros
> though. would return a number between 1 and 4000 (including
Ciao Jed
Thank you for the link. I think Mario or Thomas' solutions will be more
economical for the specific need.
BUT, yet again, I end up feeling like a bad dog for not knowing your gizmo
existed.
*We need do something to sort out our informational mess.* Where stuff
exists but we have to
We've got at least 3 third-party solutions for finding randoms. Shouldn't
something like this be in the stock TW5 filter operator and/or widget tool
kit?
Mark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"TiddlyWiki" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and
Same here, but different ;–)
I added a random integer generator to my rpn script. No leading zeros
though.
<>
would return a number between 1 and 4000 (including 1 and 4000).
In case anyone wants to try it: https://tid.li/tw5/plugins.html – it is a
plugin now.
Happy randomizing
Thomas
Am
While for this use I think that Mario's answer is better I did make a
widget that returns a random number in a given
range. http://inmysocks.tiddlyspot.com/#RandVal%20Plugin
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"TiddlyWiki" group.
To unsubscribe from
Thank you Mark S. I appreciate it.
On Friday, 14 July 2017 22:34:31 UTC+2, Mark S. wrote:
>
> Just change
>
> <$list filter="0 1 2 3 4 +[random[1]]" variable="n1" >
>
> to
>
> <$list filter="0 1 2 3 +[random[1]]" variable="n1" >
>
> On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 1:29:29 PM UTC-7, @TiddlyTweeter
Just change
<$list filter="0 1 2 3 4 +[random[1]]" variable="n1" >
to
<$list filter="0 1 2 3 +[random[1]]" variable="n1" >
On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 1:29:29 PM UTC-7, @TiddlyTweeter wrote:
>
> Thanks Mark S.
>
> Yes to 3999 would work best. I can rename 4000 as . Anything over
>
Thanks Mark S.
Yes to 3999 would work best. I can rename 4000 as . Anything over
4000 would hit a void.
How should PMario's idea be modified for that?
Best wishes
Josiah
On Friday, 14 July 2017 22:03:14 UTC+2, Mark S. wrote:
>
> D'oh! Very clever Pmario!
>
> That will actually make a
D'oh! Very clever Pmario!
That will actually make a number between and 4999. Perhaps a number
between and 3999 would be acceptable? That's actually 4000 distinct
numbers.
Mark
On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 11:20:23 AM UTC-7, PMario wrote:
>
> imo better:
>
> \define
Thanks PMario
I can see what that is doing and it makes sense & should run fast.
I will play with it and see if I can get it to work for what I need.
Best wishes
Josiah
On Friday, 14 July 2017 20:20:23 UTC+2, PMario wrote:
>
> imo better:
>
> \define number()$(n1)$$(n2)$$(n3)$$(n4)$
> <$list
imo better:
\define number()$(n1)$$(n2)$$(n3)$$(n4)$
<$list filter="0 1 2 3 4 +[random[1]]" variable="n1" >
<$list filter="1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 +[random[1]]" variable="n2" >
<$list filter="1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 +[random[1]]" variable="n3" >
<$list filter="1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 +[random[1]]"
Thanks Mark S.
A query, does "<$list filter="0001 0002 0003 ...etc... 4000 +[random[1]]"
variable="num" >" mean i'd have to literally enter 4000 numbers? If so,
that looks like asking for trouble.
Could it not be calculated from a spawned random?
I wasn't actually thinking of using Tobias'
I assume you're thinking of using Tobias' random solution ? His is based on
selecting tiddler titles. Haven't tried it, but assuming you could
construct a massive filter like:
\define reimage() C:\mypath\fw_$(num)$.jpg
<$list filter="0001 0002 0003 ...etc... 4000 +[random[1]]" variable="num" >
16 matches
Mail list logo
