Folks,
Give splitregexp[\n] try below code fragment on tiddlywiki.com to see how
lines can be read as fragments.
<$list filter="HelloThere">
<$list filter="[all[current]get[text]splitregexp[\n]]" variable=abstract>
<$link to=<<currentTiddler>> ><$text text=<<abstract>>/></$link><hr>
</$list>
</$list>
Using the recent xml tools adds even more possibilities, including finding
a way to extract html sections that can be address elsewhere.
A more advanced version of the above in my tiddlers contain a comment
section
<!--
Abstract: A abstract about the content of this tiddler
-->
And the filter I use in the above code is
[all[current]get[text]splitregexp[\n]prefix[Abstract:]]
So I am fragmenting content as if I through a grenade into it.
The prefix operator is a friend here; it could tell the difference between,
https:// and file:// and anything else that may be present in a line
Regards
Tony
On Thursday, May 21, 2020 at 4:26:27 PM UTC+10, TonyM wrote:
>
> Hay, I am all for chunking, but we must realise moving a chunk is
> important, rather than copying it, Chunks need to keep their name, if we do
> make copies, or we can loose data with duplicates.
>
> Another point is combining chunks can remain virtual with chunks remaining
> themself. We could find a way to do sections like in TWC to access chunks
> within tiddlers, but this is a slippery slope.
>
> So things can be chunked until they can be chunked no more, then can be
> collected and ordered to combine them virtually, but avoid physically
> combining them unless there is an identified reason to de-chunk.
>
> This can be compared to Analysis and Synthesis but in this case synthesis
> is virtual and flexible. We never loose the gains of analysis.The chucks we
> find. Careful chunking will always record what we divided, to do the
> chunking and maintain this information in the system.
>
>
> Regards
> Tony
>
> On Thursday, May 21, 2020 at 4:02:40 PM UTC+10, TiddlyTweeter wrote:
>>
>>
>> TiddlyTweeter wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Is "FRAGMENT" scope ONLY intuitively known, rather than formally
>>>> definable? If so .... then ...?
>>>>
>>>
>> Mat responded ...
>>
>>> ...then the important thing is that we have a system that allows the
>>> data to change along with the changes of our feeble minds. To merge or
>>> split the fragments as we see fit. IMO TW does this better than any other
>>> software I know of BUT there is definite room for experimentation and
>>> improvement. For example, it would be cool if we could drag'n drop to merge
>>> tiddlers. And if the excision functionality was more accessible.
>>>
>>
>> That's interesting. "More ways to re-chunk" ?? Sounds right, to make data
>> and concepts of that data more explicitly re-chunkable ?? That loop, to
>> re-do fragment size & scope, I think fits human meaning making process
>> better than idea of "getting it right"--which completely overlooks we are
>> inherently iterative.
>>
>> FWIW, In my own case, I am very interested in facilitating associative
>> thinking. For example have a wiki of thousands of phrases (sub sentence)
>> that you can randomise and then transclude and save interesting combos of.
>> Repeat at will.
>>
>> Basically, a William Burroughs "cut-up" machine. That use of random
>> "fragments" supports associative cognition and pattern (new story)
>> recognition in a helpful low overhead way.
>>
>> Thoughts
>> TT
>>
>
--
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/7cfaad3d-5024-467b-95c7-2a7af0fa8cb7%40googlegroups.com.
