On Saturday, February 8, 2014 6:17:22 PM UTC+1, Jeremy Ruston wrote: > > 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>> >
-1 IMO this is not a simplification. For me it's a confusion. ... $param$ in the source tells me, that I have to go to the " \define ..." line and have a look at the parameters there. $a$ tells me the same. If I inspect the macro definition I see, that the "a" param is missing. ... So I'd prepare a pullrequest, that fixes the problem. ... Just to find out, that somewhere there is a macro definition, that is used in the second body. .... It may work in your example, because it is short and both macro bodies can be seen. .. If a macro has a big body, imo this will lead to a lot of confusion and a lot of support. -mario -- 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.
