> > Jeremy, I thing we should really think about just ONE notation for > variables. Maybe different scopes, but just one type of notations. > > At the moment we have at least 3 I know of: > > 1. $var$ - macro parameters > 2. $(var)$ - those set with <$set> > 3. <<var>> - those set with <$list> > > Additionally <<var>> could as well be a macro called "var". I think this > is by far too much. > Firstly, macros and variables are the same thing. Or to be more precise, a variable is a macro that doesn't take any parameters.
There might also be some confusion in your description of 2 and 3 above: the variables used by the <$set> widget are the same as the ones used by the <$list> widget; there aren't two different sorts of variables. $param$ and $(var)$ are text substitutions that are performed before the content of a macro is wikified. This is subtly different than <<macro>>, which is essentially a type of transclusion. Like ordinary transclusion, the transcluded content is wikified independently from the text that is transcluding it. The simplification that I think we could make would be to combine the syntax for parameter substitution and variable substitution, so that $var$ would be used to substitute both macro parameters and variables. For example, with this proposal: \define a() rainbow \end \define b(param) $param$: $a$ \end <<b unicorn>> Would display: "unicorn rainbow". Best wishes Jeremy -- Jeremy Ruston mailto:[email protected] -- 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.
