I just discovered the other thing that causes me problems: lack of
proximity.
I do find it difficult looking at "Tag 4" in that filter and not seeing the
filter operator right before it. So I see the comma, and I backtrack away
from "Tag 4" to figure out the filter operator is "tag".
That back and forth, like long scrolls up and down in a browser window, or
back and forward buttons on browsers, all cause dysfunction for this kid.
Thanks, Álvaro. You just helped me understand a little something there
about how I process things, or rather when I can't process things...
On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 1:28:11 PM UTC-3 Charlie Veniot wrote:
> Oh man, that is pretty awesome. I can see the majority of the folk loving
> that.
>
> But you're right, for my disability, that isn't explicit enough for me to
> distinguish what's going on.
>
> Too many ways of specifying individual tags, and I start getting into some
> cognitive overload. I'm the same way when facing a Chinese food buffet,
> always holding up the line because of too many choices.
>
> Regardless, that is pretty awesome for normal folk who can bounce between
> the different ways the tag operator can be used.
>
>
> On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 12:39:53 PM UTC-3 Álvaro wrote:
>
>> It works fine. I tried to find a alternative, but I wasn't lucky.
>>
>> When I resee your filter, I remember about the multiple parameters in
>> filter operator with commas (from last version, 5.1.23). And we can add a
>> second filter run that it applies your filter to result of first run. Then
>> you can rewrite your filter something like this (in filtering transclusion)
>> {{{ [tag[Tag 1]*,*[Tag 2],[Tag 3],[Tag 4]]
>> :filter[tags[]count[]compare:eq[4]] }}}
>>
>> Although maybe it be less understandble for you.
>>
>>
>> El viernes, 24 de septiembre de 2021 a las 10:59:50 UTC+2,
>> [email protected] escribió:
>>
>>> That's fine by me.
>>>
>>> And yes filters are fun even if sometimes a bit tricky.
>>>
>>> So for the fun of it, you could arrange your filter so that the input
>>> would be the 4 tags you want.
>>>
>>> something like that:
>>>
>>> \define fun(tags)
>>> <$set variable=occ filter="[[$tags]....put your filter code
>>> here...count[]]">Seen <<occ>> tiddlers with tags $tags$</$set>
>>> \end
>>>
>>> Sometimes, this fun has you coding javascript filter operator. Would
>>> this be the case here? I have not thought about it yet.
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>>
>>>
>>> Le vendredi 24 septembre 2021 à 03:54:34 UTC+2, [email protected] a
>>> écrit :
>>>
>>>> Me and my interest in brain age games, I couldn't help but play around
>>>> with a filter to find all tiddlers that have all four specified tags, but
>>>> only those four tags.
>>>>
>>>> You'll find three tiddlers in the attached json. Download the file,
>>>> and drag into some TiddlyWiki instance (TiddlyWiki.com !) to take a gander.
>>>>
>>>> There are all kinds of ways to go about doing this sort of thing, with
>>>> some filter operators maybe better suited, but I find the result a bit
>>>> easier for me to understand (more logical to me, or maybe more
>>>> self-explanatory, because of the way my brain works, I suppose.) Maybe
>>>> just a difference between top-down view vs bottom-up view or something ...
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, I find filters fun.
>>>>
>>>
--
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/3ba7651c-a163-4b98-be43-ad9089a10209n%40googlegroups.com.
