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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywikidev.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywikidev/e839dffc-f5ea-47ff-8f25-4a44ec07ed73%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
