Oops, wrong account, that was me.
среда, 30 января 2013 г., 18:09:52 UTC+4 пользователь JL написал:
>
> All right, the new proposal is the following (passed tests, aside the 76
> o):
>
> current slicesRE:
>
> /(?:^([\'\/]{0,2})~?([\.\w]+)\:\1[\t\x20]*([^\n]+)[\t\x20]*$)|
> (?:^\|
> ([\'\/]{0,2})~?([^\|\n\f\r\t]*[^\|\n\f\r\t\:\x20])\:?\4\t*
> \|[\t\x20]*([^\n]+)[\t\x20]*\|
> $)
> /gm;
>
> where the third line is the slicename with wrappers, which is
>
> ([\'\/]{0,2})
> ~?
> ([^\|\n\f\r\t]*[^\|\n\f\r\t\:\x20])
> \:?
> \4
> \t*
>
> where the longest line is the slicename matching thing itself.
>
> The name is proposed to become
>
> [^\|\s\:\~\'\/]
> |
> (?:[^\|\s~\'\/][^\|\n\f\r]*[^\|\s\:\'\/])
>
> The first line is one-symbol sliceName, both ~ and : are forbidden;
> the third is 2+ symbol sliceName, all leading/trailing white-space symbols
> [inside the slice name] are forbidden, but spaces/tabs are permitted inside
> the slice name.
>
> The proposed wrapper is
>
> \x20?
> ([\'\/]{0,2})
> ~?
> ([^\|\s\:\~\'\/]|(?:[^\|\s~\'\/][^\|\n\f\r]*[^\|\s\:\'\/]))
> \:?
> \4
> [\x20\t]*
>
> so only one leading space is allowed (can't imagine other needs) and
> arbitrary quantity of trailing spaces/tabs, which all are not included to
> the sliceName.
>
> The final version of the RE is
>
>
> /(?:^([\'\/]{0,2})~?([\.\w]+)\:\1[\t\x20]*([^\n]+)[\t\x20]*$)|(?:^\|\x20?([\'\/]{0,2})~?([^\|\s\:\~\'\/]|(?:[^\|\s~\'\/][^\|\n\f\r]*[^\|\s\:\'\/]))\:?\4[\x20\t]*\|[\t\x20]*([^\n]+)[\t\x20]*\|$)/gm;
>
> which is somewhat longer than the previous one:
>
>
> /(?:^([\'\/]{0,2})~?([\.\w]+)\:\1[\t\x20]*([^\n]+)[\t\x20]*$)|(?:^\|([\'\/]{0,2})~?([^\|\n\f\r\t]*[^\|\n\f\r\t\:\x20])\:?\4\t*\|[\t\x20]*([^\n]+)[\t\x20]*\|$)/gm;
>
> In principle, this can be artificially shortened: we can forbid sliceNames
> starting with ":" and change
>
> [^\|\s\:\~\'\/]|(?:[^\|\s~\'\/][^\|\n\f\r]*[^\|\s\:\'\/])
>
> to
>
> ([^\|\s~\'\/\:](?:[^\|\n\f\r]*[^\|\'\/~\s\:])?)
>
> but I don't think that makes much difference.
>
>
> The version which I mentioned as "final" is pushed with a short summary
> [1], see in comments.
>
> > all variations with quotes, double square brackets, etc
>
> Those weren't supported before, and actually slicename wrapped into *both*
> // and '' is not a slicename (only one wrapper is allowed). Even supporting
> "[[" will complicate the code significantly, as far as I can see.
>
> As for the performance, I don't know about this impact either. Though,
> slices are not typically calculated in all tiddlers at once, so I wound't
> expect any problems with this.
>
> Best regards,
> Yakov.
>
> [1] https://github.com/TiddlyWiki/tiddlywiki/pull/112
>
> среда, 30 января 2013 г., 16:26:37 UTC+4 пользователь Tobias Beer написал:
>>
>> Hi again,
>>
>> Thanks for the clarification / reminder, Yakov.
>>
>> So yes, for tables I would say it makes perfect sense to allow for
>> leading or trailing blanks and then strip them ...assuming all of that
>> doesn't come with too much overhead in terms of code / performance. Let's
>> just say, I have no clue of the overal peformance impact of (altering)
>> slice calculations.
>>
>> So...
>>
>> |var|val|
>> or
>> | var|val|
>> or
>> |var |val|
>> or
>> | var |val|
>>
>> ...and all variations with quotes, double square brackets, etc.... should
>> be valid ...from my perspective.
>>
>> Cheers, Tobias.
>>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"TiddlyWikiDev" 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/tiddlywikidev?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
