Mohammad,
Yes the single prefix statement allows oneWord where "one" is the prefix of
another "word"!
And to do what you say more literally you could use "contains[one]"
This of course can be stopped if required with
filter="[<__x__>prefix[one]suffix[one]]"
If we ever get an equals[] operator this would become
[<__x__>equals[one]]
Not real yet :)
Regards
Tony
On Saturday, July 27, 2019 at 7:30:23 PM UTC+10, Mohammad wrote:
>
> Thanks Tony!
> It works great! I also used a simple version as this
>
>
> \define case(x)
> <$list filter="[<__x__>prefix[one]]">
> This is case one.
> </$list>
> <$list filter="[<__x__>prefix[two]]">
> This is case two
> </$list>
> <$list filter="[<__x__>prefix[three]] [<__x__>prefix[four]]">
> This is case three and four
> </$list>
> \end
>
> <<case "one">>
> <<case two>>
> <<case "three tag">>
> <<case "four dogs come">>
>
> The prefix is case sensitive and it is good
> but it also handle cases like oneWord where one is part of another word!
>
> --Mohammad
>
>
> On Saturday, July 27, 2019 at 11:12:56 AM UTC+4:30, TonyM wrote:
>>
>> Mohammad,
>>
>> I some ways I built this so the empty message did not require a macro, to
>> keep all the logic in the one block.
>>
>> I would imaging people would copy such a block as follows
>> <$list filter="[<casevariable>] ~[[::false]]" variable=case>
>> <$list filter="[<case>prefix[::false]]" variable=case>
>> Do this if no case value
>> </$list>
>> <$list filter="[<case>!prefix[::false]]" variable=case>
>> Do this for every case except empty/false
>> </$list>
>> <$list filter="[<case>prefix[caseone]]" variable=case>
>> Process "caseone"<br>
>> </$list>
>> <$list filter="[<case>prefix[casetwo]]" variable=case>
>> Process "casetwo"<br>
>> </$list>
>> <$list filter="[<case>prefix[casethree]]" variable=case>
>> Process "casethree"<br>
>> </$list>
>> <!-- Even this -->
>> <$list filter="[<case>prefix[casetwo]] [<case>prefix[casethree]]"
>> variable=case>
>> Process "casetwo" and "casethree"<br>
>> </$list>
>> </$list>
>> Then change add remove as needed for their application
>>
>> However in the unlikely case people need to use "nested case statements
>> or reuse them, here is a Quick macro version
>> \define in-cases-of(case-filter)
>> <$list filter="$case-filter$ ~[[::false]]" variable=case>
>> <$list filter="[<case>prefix[::false]]" variable=case>
>> Do this if no case value
>> </$list>
>> <$list filter="[<case>!prefix[::false]]" variable=case>
>> Do this for every case except empty/false
>> </$list>
>> <$list filter="[<case>prefix[caseone]]" variable=case>
>> Process "caseone"<br>
>> </$list>
>> <$list filter="[<case>prefix[casetwo]]" variable=case>
>> Process "casetwo"<br>
>> </$list>
>> <$list filter="[<case>prefix[casethree]]" variable=case>
>> Process "casethree"<br>
>> </$list>
>> <!-- Even this -->
>> <$list filter="[<case>prefix[casetwo]] [<case>prefix[casethree]]"
>> variable=case>
>> Process "casetwo" and "casethree"<br>
>> </$list>
>> </$list>
>> \end
>>
>> <<in-cases-of "[{!!tiddler-mode}]">>
>> Which still needs editing for the specific situation
>>
>> CHanges most likely would be only
>>
>> - Change the values for caseone casetwo and casethree to those you
>> want to use
>> - Add remove other responses to different case values or combinations
>> thereof.
>>
>> Additional interesting patterns here
>>
>> - The above method of passing filters to a macro as a parameter,
>> allows you to pass tiddler content, field content, literal values,
>> variable values,
>> macronames etc.. which sometimes suddenly results in a macro for one
>> purpose suddenly be capable of another purpose.
>>
>> In a similar way we can pass a filter to a macro as follows
>>
>> \define my-macro(filter)
>> {{{ $filter$ }}}
>> {{{ $filter$ ||templatename}}}
>> \end
>> or
>> \define my-macro(filter template)
>> {{{ $filter$ }}}
>> {{{ $filter$ ||$templatename$}}}
>> \end
>>
>> Once again all this is untested but based on experience.
>>
>> Regards
>> Tony
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, July 27, 2019 at 2:39:30 PM UTC+10, Mohammad wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Tony!
>>> This is great and needs some examples to explore the pros and cons!
>>> By the way as you said the application may vary case by case and a macro
>>> may not be a good option.
>>>
>>> --Mohammad
>>>
>>> On Saturday, July 27, 2019 at 4:18:31 AM UTC+4:30, TonyM wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Mohammad,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> We need to wrap inside a macro to present a construct like
>>>>>
>>>>> <<select-case condition array-of-cases>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> In someways I am suggesting you do not need to make a "select-case
>>>> macro " because the whole case structure including the empty case can be
>>>> written inside the one outer list object. Thus it may be included
>>>> something
>>>> like this
>>>> {{invoice-total}}
>>>> where the case test various conditions and generates a result eg if tax
>>>> applies etc...
>>>>
>>>> However if you do want to make a macro as in your example the case
>>>> structure will still need to know how to handle your array-of-cases
>>>>
>>>> I would think its more like this;
>>>> \define if-else-test(filter)
>>>> <$list filter="[[$filter$]] ~[[::else]]" variable=case>
>>>> <$list filter="[<case>!prefix[::else]]" variable=case>
>>>> filter-not-empty do-this for each result
>>>> </$list>
>>>> <$list filter="[<case>prefix[::else]]" variable=case>
>>>> else do-that
>>>> </$list>
>>>> <!-- other cases if desired -->
>>>> </$list>
>>>> \end
>>>> <<if-else-test "filter">>
>>>> note: untested
>>>>
>>>> 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 [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/acccfc9f-d605-4dcc-a1da-f5499818f09f%40googlegroups.com.
