Oh and in answer to your original question, it seems that the list macro could benefit from a refresh mechanism. This would mean the entire parameter string would be accessible via a params attribute and would also update when tiddlers change (you could thus do paramString.parseParams).
To demonstrate the lack of a refresh mechanism create a tiddler "1" with text: <<list filter [tag[foo]]>> Now create another tiddler "2" tagged foo and save. The list in "1" will not show "2" until you reload it/edit and cancel. A refresh mechanism would make this automatically update. I must also add that I agree with everything Chris is saying. It's great that these changes are more visible and getting the attention they deserve before becoming core. It makes the project much more exciting to develop in. On Mar 18, 10:05 am, PMario <[email protected]> wrote: > @FrD & @passingby > I didn't want to worry anyone. > I _didn't_ post this topic to TW group by accident. > I just wanted to have more different opinions. > > For the CSS formating stuff and the possibility to improve my plugins, > mentioned in my first post. > > I was really happy, to test the upcomming features with TiddlySpace. > And since the version is not released yet, I thought it would be good > to point out, that I'd want some "legobricks" too and how they should > look like :) > > There is more to say. > I'll directly post to other topics. But I'll need some time. > > -m > > On Mar 18, 8:11 am, FrD <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I'm not a big contributor to the groups (TW and TWdev) but I feel > > strongly concerned > > with TW. I like this tool and I use it for personal and semi- > > professional purposes. > > > I was pleased to see there was a new impulse in the TWDev group. > > But I was disappointed when I read this thread. > > > As Eric I'd like to see a more balanced approach to core development. > > And simply put I'd like to have some informations on the new features > > that are > > proposed for the new versions. > > > > * How should new TWCore features proposed and refined? e.g., online > > > discussions, tickets, conference calls, emails, personal > > > conversations, formal RFPs/RFCs (YUCK!), etc. > > > I'd prefer some informal discussions on main topics, or important > > changes, > > here or better on TWDev > > > > * What criteria are used to evaluate new features? e.g., public > > > demand, code complexity/risk, adaptability (plugin potential), > > > backward-compatibility, cross-platform compatibility, etc. > > > I'm not very concerned with backward compatibility, since I use only > > some plugins mainly from tiddlytools and I'm pretty sure Eric will > > adapt his work to the new features (?!) > > I think public demand through this forum is a good criterium. > > > And I agree with everything Måns said about "legobricks" :-) > > > FrD -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki?hl=en.
