Hi Mario… ignoring that I think you're acting a bit polemic, I'll try my best to answer your question. Keep in mind that my idea is not yet thought through.
Am Freitag, 13. Dezember 2013 01:35:47 UTC+1 schrieb PMario: > > On Thursday, December 12, 2013 6:27:42 PM UTC+1, Stephan Hradek wrote: >> >> The idea is that we have at the low level a list of tiddlers which is one >> of (all) (system) (shadows) (missing) (orphans). >> > > Why would you want to limit the starting set? > I don't limit it, I define it. > ... If I say [tag[test]] I want to get a list of tiddlers tagged test > Okay… So what do you have to do if you want all system tiddlers tagged "test"? [tag[test]is[system]] right? I feel it's more logical to write it differently (contains "test" (tags (system))) > The existing/implemented [tag[asdf]] syntax is a known syntax for TWc > users. There are more possibilities now but the basic mechanism is the > same. I'm not sure if TW5 and TWc filter definitions are compatible. But > since TWc has less possibilities I think it should be an easy migration > path. > Which led us to where we are. Even Jeremy (correct me if I'm wrong, Jeremy) sees the need for something more consistent. > In the above syntax discription I can't see a union and an intersection? > You mean: I gave no example? That's right. What if I use (lt "Stephan") ? > Would give us for example "Mario" as "M" is "less than" "S" but not "Zachary". > > I'm reading from left to right. > You do? > To understand, how the restult will look like, I'll need to read it from > the inner most braces to the outside. right? > So if you do, could you please tell me the result of sqrt(9*(4+sqrt(25))), just reading left to right! ;) No… just kidding… > ... I don't like this. > Okay. Counted… I'd like to have a filter syntax that is easy to understand. > Come on! The SYNTAX is easy to understand. It's always (operator arguments). Nothing else. What you would like to have, I guess, is a filter description language that's easy to use, given your current knowledge. So this depends heavily on what you already understand. So if you're THE Assembler Guru, You can make up an assembler like language, where you have several registers which you load and combine. Or the JavaScript Master can make up a JavaScript like filter language. Me I would have to write something more perl or regexp like. But as I know that there s LISP and that LISP is for list manipualtion, I felt it's a neat approach. > But replacing [] with () for me is _no_ solution. > :D If you really think, I jst replaced square brackets with round ones, then sorry, but look again. > IMO 99% of TW users will have no idea what lisp is. > Okay… But – Is this an argument? -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
