Jeremy Ruston wrote:
> Err under this proposal, “variables” are just tiddlers whose value is 
> different across the widget tree. We haven’t turned every tiddler into a 
> variable, we’ve turned variables into a special type of tiddler. 

> The idea of a naming convention is so that users can easily distinguish 
> between tiddlers intended to be used as variables, and those intended for 
> ordinary use.

Aha, more akin to how we currently use e.g state tiddlers then. I'll start 
a new thread on some thoughts about this.

Then the difference between {{Foo}} and <<Foo>> would be that the latter 
>> would be equivalent to {{$:/variable/Foo}}.
> Couldn't e.g {{Foo}} cover everything? -
> Yes, that’s exactly it; I was proposing the angle brackets syntax as a 
> shortcut for transcluding tiddlers with a particular prefix to their title. 
> The idea is to allow us to use long tiddler titles for variables (that 
> won’t clash with the users tiddler titles) while being able to refer to 
> them without typing the entire name.

But then you're still proposing a syntax with two kinds of brackets, that 
users must learn about. Even if only {{}} is *required* and <<...>> is a 
shortcut for {{$:/...}}, the user will probably still have to learn about 
both of those - just like it currently, very early on, is insufficient to 
only know about <<>> for macrocalls (any complex argument typically forces 
use of <$macrocall/>). My OP is mainly about simplifying the syntax because 
we have so many syntax forms.


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 post to this group, send email to
Visit this group at
To view this discussion on the web visit
For more options, visit

Reply via email to