Hi Mark, I did not followed this thread! By the may many thanks for giving the solution in a wiki! I bookmarked this thread and will also doc it on TW-Scripts.
--Mohammad On Thursday, February 27, 2020 at 10:41:51 PM UTC+3:30, Mark S. wrote: > > I think Mohammad said he was going to post the date macros on his script > site, but I don't see them at the moment. > > Here's another home, if you're interested: > > > https://marxsal.github.io/various/playground.html#Date%20Conversion%20Macros > > There have been other date manipulation macros, but these use no > javascript and have a nice long date range, > though maybe only for the last 2000 years. > > Because they're actually based on yyyy, mm, and dd numbers, it should be > possible > to create an input for them rather easily. > > I feel that the date filter operators inside of TW were made for the > internal needs of TW, not > necessarily for the general user. The 1899 limitation is just one case in > point. There's nothing in the core, > for instance, that would allow you to calculate all the dates in a 10 day > range, or to > calculate the difference between two dates. > > On Thursday, February 27, 2020 at 1:22:49 AM UTC-8, TiddlyTweeter wrote: >> >> Ciao Tony, tx. Good to have a challenge! >> >> It got clear its pragmatically an issue for dates prior to 1899. So I >> will have to add a field for older works. >> >> I'm still not bothered for anything after that on creation date. I don't >> see the problem. >> >> Probably my laziness to never do anything a different way IF you can do >> it with existing tools. >> >> Best wishes >> TT >> >> On Monday, 24 February 2020 23:20:08 UTC+1, TonyM wrote: >>> >>> TT, >>> >>> I do which to express a different view point in the sprite of >>> collaborative diversity. >>> >>> Thanks for your concern. But I don't think it is an issue in the >>>> particular use case. E.g. excerpts of scripts written in 1957. Works fine. >>>> That dating identifies them well without need of an additional field. >>>> >>> >>> See my most recent post why I think it is a problem >>> I am happy to help with you making use of an additional field. >>> >>> >>>> User created Tiddler dating would work as normal. I can't see a problem? >>>> >>> >>> Perhaps you could not see the problem, thus I respectfully suggest their >>> is. >>> >>>> >>>> In any case, I intended the OP to be about better understanding the >>>> limits on dates in TW. I'm interested in that. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>> This is precisely what I am suggesting , the limits, and the limits or a >>> de facto standard should in my view not use the system date/and time for >>> something they are not. >>> >>> Lets import some great date handling libraries and make it easy to >>> develop and use such dates. For example the mear existence of a >>> "historical" date in a tiddler already provides information that is for >>> historical information which enriches the solution rather than degrade the >>> solution. >>> >>> Regards >>> Tony >>> >> -- 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/9964084d-6141-4206-8649-a8edb95edc84%40googlegroups.com.
