Yeah. I went with a simple architecture. Creating a UID adds a field to the tiddler with a UID value.
Adding a UID to a system tiddler would create a copy of that tiddler. That would suck. I think the whole concept of UID should be in the core, and for the core to know how to handle UID's getting slapped on system tiddlers. Well, something like that. I have to chew on it a little. Up to now, my concept of UID is just for those folk who want stable URL's to non-system tiddlers. Instead of storing a UID with a tiddler, it could be stored somewhere else. Yuck. On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 12:47:25 PM UTC-3 TiddlyTweeter wrote: > [email protected] wrote: > >> Oh good Lord no, this isn't meant for system tiddlers. That's something >> that would need preventing (i.e. make that button unavailable for system >> tiddlers,) which should be ridiculously easy to do. > > > Good. But now, a footnote. > > But WHAT are "system tiddlers"? Surely they include anything starting *"$:/" > *... > In my own case I create zillions of tiddlers starting "$:/". > > It is just a fetish I have based on the* Wizard Of Oz. * > Everything under "$:/" is *behind the curtain.* > THOSE could do UID too and, in my case, would be needed for UID to work > for this end user. > > It is *only *shadowed tiddlers that would have the issue I raised in my > previous post. > > Further 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/e0173866-b8fb-47b7-b49f-a0c8a349f3e4n%40googlegroups.com.
