I would suggest using a separate independent and full date field (Serial). If you know you will want to sort by dd.mm (very strange to me) then at the time you create the tiddler, accept the value of new date field and simultaneously add dd.mm to another field by which to sort in the future.
Regards Tony On Monday, 18 May 2020 07:22:27 UTC+10, Mat wrote: > > I agree with Riz; it would be much better if you changed your naming > convention. It is *possible *to create a custom solution for it but it is > just not a good idea because it would either be overly complicated or, if > solved more lazily, it would be error prone. It is problematic to identify > which are the relevant tiddlers because their prefix varies but, even > worse, is that in order to sort it one would have to chop up the title and > split out parts several times, since you have the date in a backward order > from how you want it sorted. And you want it as a neat subfilter to feed > into a ready made ToC macro... not doable. > > So, as Riz says, better change the name to "yyyy.mm.dd - ..." or, ideally, > use a separate field for the date. > > <:-) > -- 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/3b88d086-307d-40fa-8c7b-3165e13921e8%40googlegroups.com.
