> On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 3:45:52 PM UTC+2 Mohammad wrote: >> Strangely (or amazingly!!!) all of them work! You can even name a >> variable like *)*& * >> Is this a sign of pure forgiveness? >> > That's intentional.
> Or something has been forgotten? Or this is a design philosophy? >> > Philosiphy. > While most users do not need in depth scripting but I believe most of the >> above are error prone! >> > Sometimes it may cause problems. ... But for some usecases, we don't know, it may be the only way to create a simple solution. .. So limiting the possibilities will do more harm, than good, in the long run. I think it's about "choice". The user has the choice. ... They can decide if it works for them or not. > What do you think? I think we need some coding conventions? Some good >> practice at least! >> > hihi, ... Talking about "coding conventions" is like "talking about religion" ... I think some examples and a little bit of "best practice" is the way to go. On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 7:22:54 PM UTC+2 Atronoush wrote: ... > This is absolutely bad practice! I believe TW should raise warning for > these specially names like , > or even the worst case $*&) > We do raise a warning for tiddler titles, if you use brackets, because they can cause problems in filter syntax. But since most operators can handle variables, even this shouldn't be a problem anymore. .. What's the difference between *)*& *and "хелло-wорлд" ... Both strings look strange for me. But for someone who can read it, it's perfectly fine. You are right. Brackets can make problems. ... But the rest should be fine. -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/f54d074c-e750-414b-bd12-6caf402faf43n%40googlegroups.com.
