> > Why is *get* special, such that *[get[type]]* doesn't mean > *[each[type]get[type]*? >
I think it boils down to a matter of implementation. Possibly *get *came after *each *and was designed for the purpose of fetching a single tiddler's field, e.g. to set a variable. I guess it was not intended to operate on a list of tiddlers. But the behaviour you sugest sounds like a meaningful expectation because those duplicates really are undesired. Otherwise, we'd need another *unique* filter operand to get rid of the duplicates. So, theoretically, I think it could operate like *each*, but then I think it should rather be *[has[type]each[type]get[type]*... not returning blanks. But perhaps there is a case where you do want specifically declared blanks, rather than undefined. I was about to extend *each*, so it does handle list fields, e.g. *[each:list[]]* or *[each:list[my-list-field]*. But now I am thinking that this isn't consistent with the way *each* actually works right now. Perhaps it should rather be: *[tag[foo]get:list[]]* or *[**tag[foo]* *get:list[my-list-field]]* with the behaviour you describe, thus returning individual tiddler references of list fields, not those distinct combinations or values thereof that would be returned now. Best wishes, Tobias. -- 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 post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
