Hi Arlen > what do you think about defining the macro body in a separate tiddler?
This is intertwingled with the upcoming addition of global macros. The issue there is whether to introduce a new type of "macro definition tiddler", each of which defines a single macro, or to allow importing of macro definitions from within ordinary tiddlers with an `\import` pragma. We may even need to do both. > The only thing I'm not sure about is backward compatibility within the navigator widget. Currently, I look for a linebreak in the param string and if there isn't one then use the old getTiddler method. However, this constrains us to using multiple lines going forward. Maybe that doesn't matter. Maybe it does. What do you think? It's tricky. We've already got many places in TW5 where linebreaks are significant, but here is seems like we're unexpectedly switching between very different modes of operation depending on quite a small signal. When we do that, we need to try to make these exceptional rules at least have wide applicability. Basically, as I said on the hangout, I think all of this complexity has arisen because of the constraints on widget message parameters, and that's where I think it might be interesting to pay attention. Best wishes Jeremy. On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Arlen Beiler <[email protected]> wrote: > Here is a gist showing the changes to macrodef.js that would be necessary. > https://gist.github.com/Arlen22/11149813 > > I copied in the current version first, so if you click revisions you can > see the changes I made. Enjoy! > > --Arlen > > > On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Arlen Beiler <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Jeremy, >> Not sure if you saw my comment on GitHub, but what do you think about >> defining the macro body in a separate tiddler? Something like \define >> {new-tiddler-test} mySkelaton() >> The reason I like the x-tiddler serial format so much is because (1) >> it is already made, and (2) it does everything in what seems to be an easy >> to use format. The only thing I'm not sure about is backward compatibility >> within the navigator widget. Currently, I look for a linebreak in the param >> string and if there isn't one then use the old getTiddler method. However, >> this constrains us to using multiple lines going forward. Maybe that >> doesn't matter. Maybe it does. What do you think? >> The fieldmangler widget is getting a new attribute so it isn't >> affected as far as backward compatibility. >> >> --Arlen >> > > -- > 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/d/optout. > -- 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/d/optout.
