Hi Matabele, > "[has[F]]" -- those input tiddlers in which field F exists > "[!has[F]" -- those input tiddlers in which field F does not exist or has > an empty value >
For me, negation should always be proper negation in terms of set theory. If a filter defines a set, then its negation needs to define the exact complement with respect to all available members, so that A && !A = ALL. In which case "[has[F]] -[!has[F]]" -- would return those tiddlers with a > non-empty value for field F (the original output of "[has[F]]") > While this kind of optimization would work as you intend, I find it highly confusing. So, considering how things stand atm, to me it should be: - has[f] all items where the field f is defined and non-empty (as is) - !has[1] all items where the field f is not defined or empty (as is) - has:field[f] all items where the field f is defined, empty or otherwise (tbd) - !has:field[f] all items where the field f is not defined at all (tbd) Best wishes, — tb -- 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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/ca8b2d01-7750-43ca-8023-408f440941dc%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
