On Saturday, 22 December 2018 00:15:11 UTC+1, TonyM wrote:
>
> Joe,
>
> I empathise with you learning journey, having come to tiddlywiki in a
> similar way, as an IT Professional with coding in my past. Perhaps this
> perspective can help with the conceptualisation.
>
> In case it helps,
Jow,
I empathise with you learning journey, having come to tiddlywiki in a
similar way, as an IT Professional with coding in my past. Perhaps this
perspective can help with the conceptualisation.
In case it helps, filters and the filter runs are somewhat like command
line filters piping
On Thursday, 20 December 2018 12:51:13 UTC+1, @TiddlyTweeter wrote:
>
> Joe
>
> FYI I'm not a programmer and don't want to be one :-).
>
It's fun - once you get the hang of if
>
> But I found your probing is very illuminating.
>
>
Thanks
> Given you are a highly achieved programmer I
Joe
FYI I'm not a programmer and don't want to be one :-).
But I found your probing is very illuminating.
Given you are a highly achieved programmer I find it interesting even you
need to grapple the TW.
I think there is a kind of "implicit" TW zeitgeist or weltanschauung in TW
that is both
There is method in my madness :-)
I'm trying to relate stuff I don't know (ie the tiddlywiki) to stuff I do
know
(ie regular programming languages)
/Joe
On Thursday, 20 December 2018 11:58:31 UTC+1, @TiddlyTweeter wrote:
>
> J & J,
>
> "Reverse Polish" I understand.
>
> This thread is
J & J,
"Reverse Polish" I understand.
This thread is interesting for highlighting, I think, how an explanandum
can clarify the variety of explanans.
josiah
joearms wrote:
>
>B C +A
>
> is pretty neat - it eliminates the parentheses OR becomes whitespace and
> AND becomes +
>
> It's a
It also strikes me that rewriting
A AND (B OR C)
as
B C +A
is pretty neat - it eliminates the parentheses OR becomes whitespace and
AND becomes +
It's a Reverse Polish Monad Filter (RPMF)
/Joe
On Thursday, 20 December 2018 10:38:37 UTC+1, joearms wrote:
>
>
>
> On
On Wednesday, 19 December 2018 23:21:15 UTC+1, Jeremy Ruston wrote:
>
> Hi Joe
>
> Then a filter that finds A is "[tag[A]]"
>
> B OR C is "[tag[B]] [tag[C]]"
>
> A AND B is "[tag[A]tag[B]]"
>
> A and (B or C) has to be rewritten as
> (A and B) or (A and C) and is
>
> "[tag[A]tag[B]]
Hi Joe
> Then a filter that finds A is "[tag[A]]"
>
> B OR C is "[tag[B]] [tag[C]]"
>
> A AND B is "[tag[A]tag[B]]"
>
> A and (B or C) has to be rewritten as
> (A and B) or (A and C) and is
>
> "[tag[A]tag[B]] [tag[A]tag[C]]”
You can directly do A and (B or C) as:
[tag[B]] [tab[C]]
I'm trying to understand filters by comparing them to boolean logic.
Given three tags A B and C
Then a filter that finds A is "[tag[A]]"
B OR C is "[tag[B]] [tag[C]]"
A AND B is "[tag[A]tag[B]]"
A and (B or C) has to be rewritten as
(A and B) or (A and C) and is
"[tag[A]tag[B]]
10 matches
Mail list logo
