@pmario: Thank you very much for posting this information. It's an excellent and timely summary of material that I should be thinking about as I become a bit more active. in this community. ( _HwWvW )
Cheers, Hans On Friday, May 15, 2020 at 8:39:45 AM UTC-4, PMario wrote: > > On Friday, May 15, 2020 at 2:18:21 PM UTC+2, PMario wrote: > > If you try to establish *many *plugin-related fields. I personally would >> go with a postfix. show-info.psat ... So I can use show-info.wl ... OR >> we both agree on the behaviour of how show-info should work ;) >> > > As i wrote this, I had an idea. ... What if plugin authors agree on a > defined behaviour for new fields. This would allow us to use the same field > name with multiple plugins. > > This may lead to "total confusion" but imo it's worth some thoughts. eg: > > field name: show-info > values: yes.psat no.wl > > So my filter code could be: [contains:show-info[no.wl]] and your > [contains:show-info[yes.psat]] > > This can only work, if every plugin-author would work that way from the > beginning. .. It wouldn't be possible to test for "empty value" anymore, > because an other plugin would have a value in the field. That wouldn't be a > problem for me personally, but may be for others. > > Adding new values can be done with: append and removing a value can be > done with: remove. ... A _new_ toggle listops may be a convenience > function. > > The above would only make sense for "yes / no" like fields. > > just some thoughts > mario > -- 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/b083cb57-e4c8-4188-9ed7-54fd2fe6d0a3%40googlegroups.com.
