Ciao TonyM

Good discussion you started. I read it with interest. 

I'm  slightly laterally thinking on it ...

(1) -- revision of syntax would likely ONLY be possible in a major revision 
step ... i.e. for a TW6. So its a Longer Term aim?

(2) -- the recurrent documentation saga with TW is a complex Catch-22. Here 
works well enough when you are in the know. Its likely a put-off if you are 
visiting just trying to find your way. I think a big part of the issue is 
NUMBERS, NOT lack of will. I moaned a lot about "documentation" in the 
past. Many attempts have been made (e.g. serious ones in Reddit on 
StackExchange) . They have not fully fruited--though the StackExchange 
might if it can get more people using it regularly. I think the core issue 
its a LOW numbers game that has much natural inertia that is in play. Its 
obvious even skilled people here are sometimes frustrated. BUT, given quite 
low numbers of (brilliant) active users, the "documentation" solutions IMO 
fall into a funk-dump of nothing much happening. One needs MORE people to 
gain the traction needed IMO.

(3) -- I often wonder why there is no single page CRIB SHEET for the syntax 
with examples. But the truth is most of the "documentation" needed is there 
for *use cases* that arise daily spread over GG discussions. The problem is 
*they 
disappear into the Google Swamp* so people have to keep *Re-creating The 
Wheel* as great solutions are NEVER MARKED as such. *We throw away learning 
resources* at an astonishing rate.

(4) SO, in some ways I think your question is actually TWO different 
issues: (a) documentation of syntax; (b) simplification of syntax. Of 
course they are overlapping. But IMO we could be doing a lot better* even 
now* documenting the somewhat baroque methodology of TW. Part of it is 
about FLAGGING good solutions that necessarily *instantiate good syntax 
examples*. I suspect that might be EASILY DOABLE. All one would need is a 
list of links to GREAT POSTS with a description. I been considering doing 
it myself, but my skill level with computers is, realistically, too low to 
make such judgement calls.

Just thoughts 
Best wishes
Josiah

On Wednesday, 9 August 2017 03:55:03 UTC+2, TonyM wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
> Please forgive my being so brash to propose some TW5 core additions but I 
> am in the middle of a learing curve that may inform some improvements to 
> the core that will help others on this learning curve. I would liove your 
> feedback and if you are a GitHub proficiant person for you to submitt them. 
> First I will explain what I want with a small explination and hope the 
> reasons prove self evident, however I will put a longer argument if 
> requested. I acknowledge there may be a gap in my knowledge and are happy 
> to be set straight. I am no Genius but I am not stupid and a clear way to 
> do the following would have made adopting TW5 much easier. I hope I am 
> using the correct terminology.
>
> Psudo-Constants
> Provide tools to create "constants" within a given tiddler and any 
> sub-tiddlers (transcluded, called, macros etc...)
> I have finaly learned I can do this using the below
>
> \define currentobjectsrc() 
> {{!!title}}
> \end
> <$wikify name="currentobject" text=<<currentobjectsrc>>>
>
> Such that <<currentobject>> has the same value in all sub-tiddlers
>
> *This is still not sufficent as <<currentobject>> can only be used in some 
> places*.
>
> Why cant we have an established syntax that allows this as a built in 
> feature?
>
> The current methods are way to convoluted and I fear act as a barier to 
> someone using tiddlywiki as their knowledge must be much deeper than it 
> need be before they can do something most people will think of while they 
> are learing about tiddlywiki. In this case much can be done without 
> learning to navigate a lot of complexity by providing values that are not 
> so context sencitive.
>
> Edit fields in Current Tiddler
> Provide the tools to edit fields in the Current Tiddler
>
> The complexity of editing fields in the current tiddler, whilst it has its 
> technical reasons, runs counter to the intuitive value of tiddlywiki. The 
> most practical way is to use the tiddler edit function in which case the 
> user has to see all possible fields and values. I would like to provide 
> access to edit fields in the current tiddler through the View Template, 
> without needing to use two additional tiddlers to achive this.
>
> I understand the issue is the rendering of each key stroke and the loss of 
> focus, but why can we not have a method where you nominate a field and its 
> value is placedn in an external tiddler, you then edit the field value and 
> on pressing a (field) save button, it is written back to the calling 
> tiddler in one shot?
>
> Once again the current methods are way to convoluted and I fear act as a 
> barier to someone using tiddlywiki as their knowledge must be much deeper 
> than it need be before they can do something most people will think of 
> while they are learing about tiddlywiki. 
>
>
> Regards
> Tony
>

-- 
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 tiddlywiki+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to tiddlywiki@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/f6769916-8a36-4480-8f32-8e3727d48635%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to