> The distinction is a way of saying: do I just need the metadata of
> the tiddler to carry on with the render or do I also need its text
> field.
>
> For example if the tiddler being rendered does a <<tiddler>> macro,
> then it needs the text of that tiddler.
>
> However if there is just some kind of <<list>> macro, then you
> wouldn't need text, you'd just need titles and a bit of meta.
>
> It's essentially a premature optimization gesture on my part: Can I
> avoid getting fat tiddlers?
>
> As it turns out the code I have rolling now get tiddlers
> individually (not en-masse) so it may not be an issue.
>
> That commit coming in a moment on the wikify branch of my fork of
> cook.js.
Aha, that makes sense. I think you're talking about the same
distinction as me with my comment about distinguishing "tiddlers that
are linked to from those that are transcluded. The underlying issue
can indeed be seen as whether one needs the skinny or thick version of
the tiddler.
So, I'll explore making the dependencies be a hashmap of
{title:,type:}, where type would be "skinny" or "fat" (or something
less confusing).
There's also some housekeeping that I need to attend to: one is moving
the code over to my TiddlyWiki5 repo, because it's poorly named where
it is. When and if you get closer to production then I think I'll also
need to introduce separate dev/stable branches.
Best wishes
Jeremy.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"TiddlyWikiDev" 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/tiddlywikidev?hl=en.
