Thanks, Saq, so this means you are using recursion? Didn't realize this was
possible in TW. I will yet have to try it out and get back to you.
Am Mittwoch, 26. August 2020 22:41:16 UTC+2 schrieb Saq Imtiaz:
>
> I'm a bit tired so this isn't as clear as I would like, but hopefully this
> pseudocode will point you in the correct direction for the pattern for
> getting this done with just wikitext:
>
> \define processRow()
> nestedRows = level2 +count[]
> <$vars cnt={{{[<cnt>add<nestedRows>]}}}>
> <$list filter="[[allrows] +[after<currentTiddler>]]"
> emptyMessage="<<cnt>>">
> <<processRow>>
> </$list>
> </$vars>
> \end
>
> \define processAllRows()
> <$vars currentTiddler={{{[allrows] + first[]}}} cnt="0">
> <<processRow>>
> </$vars>
> \end
>
> <td rowspan=<<processAllRows>> > or set it to a variable for re-use.
>
> On Wednesday, August 26, 2020 at 9:16:30 PM UTC+2 Werner wrote:
>
>> Good evening guys, me again.
>>
>> I understand that the scope of a variable is defined by the enclosing
>> <$vars> <$set> or <$wikify> widgets. I also understand that any new <$set>
>> widget opens up a new scope, where a variable <myVar> defined in an outer
>> scope would be overridden. I am facing a problem where I would need to
>> access out-of-scope variables (or come up with a completely different
>> approach).
>>
>> I am still working on a set of double-nested JSON data (using Josh
>> Fontany's JSONmangler plugin). I want to display the content of the data in
>> a table using table cells spanning multiple rows like <td rowspan = "5">.
>> The problem here is, the rowspan is defined by the number of elements in
>> the lowest nested level and I would need it before rendering the table and
>> looping through the array elements fetching the data. So typically, in a
>> garden variety programming language, I would do something as follows:
>>
>> totalRows = 0
>> Loop through Level1
>> nestedRows= Level2.count()
>> totalRows += nestedRows
>> End Loop
>>
>> Could anybody enlighten me, if a construct like this is possible in TW
>> and how I would achieve it?
>>
>> Two fallback options:
>> - storing the number of elements in the JSON structure (yuck - feels like
>> cheating).
>> - throwing the whole JSON data structure at an JS macro. Positive side
>> effect: I would have to dive into it and learn something new.
>>
>> Thanks for helping me out on this.
>> Best, Werner
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
--
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/dca174b6-9de4-44bf-95ec-0d0a286fbd08o%40googlegroups.com.
