At present:

The *$transclude* widget treats any contained content as a fallback if the 
target of the transclusion is not defined (ie *a missing tiddler or a 
missing field*).
The content of the *$view* widget is displayed *if the field or property is 
missing or empty*.

It has been suggested to change the behaviour of the $transclude widget so 
that: it will treat a blank string the same as a missing field. 

The reason is in this GitHub post by Jeremy and the comment preceeding it: 
Table 
of Contents toc-caption macro awkward behaviour 
<https://github.com/Jermolene/TiddlyWiki5/issues/3624#issuecomment-469043311>

I vaugely recall mentions being made on the tiddlywiki Google groups where 
use is made of the difference in these two widgets to identify either an 
*empty* value *or* a *missing* field.

What might be the consequences of changing the behaviour of the 
*$translcude* widget as suggested?







On Saturday, February 9, 2019 at 5:41:32 PM UTC+7, S. S. wrote:
>
> Jeremy,
>
> You are right, the requested *wikified* format of the <$view> widget 
> would not differ from the wikified behaviour of the <$transclude> widget.
>
> But I believe it would be an efficient way to take advantage of this 
> difference shown below:
>
> The TranscludeWidget treats any contained content as a *fallback* if the 
>> target of the transclusion is not defined (ie a missing tiddler or a 
>> *missing 
>> *field).
>>
>
> The content of the <$view> widget is *displayed* if the field or property 
>> is *missing* or *empty*.
>>
>
> The difference is that for the <$view> widget, the fallback content 
> displays when the field is *empty*.
>
> The alternate would be to use a <$list> widget, which I believe is much 
> less efficient to catch this scenario a few hundred times during a refresh 
> (as 
> mentioned by you on github 
> <https://github.com/Jermolene/TiddlyWiki5/issues/3624#issuecomment-444985661> 
> : *We don't want to make the core toc-caption macro too complicated 
> because it is typically rendered many times*.}
>
> It is similar to the way I think the below two are the same?
>
> <$text text={{!!caption}}/>
>
> <$view field="caption" format="text"/>
>
> I hope that explains *why* I am making this suggestion.
>
> Regards
>
>
> On Saturday, February 9, 2019 at 3:57:17 PM UTC+7, Jeremy Ruston wrote:
>>
>> Hi SS
>>
>> As mentioned above, the view and transclude widgets work in a totally 
>> different way. Making the view widget behave like the transclude widget 
>> doesn't make sense because it would *be* the transclude widget.
>>
>> The behaviour you describe is already available via the transclude 
>> widget. So how would the behaviour of the proposed "wikified" format of the 
>> view widget differ from the existing behaviour of the transclude widget?
>>
>> Best wishes
>>
>> Jeremy
>>
>> --
>> Jeremy Ruston
>> [email protected]
>> https://jermolene.com
>>
>>

-- 
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/f21ad4a0-4ed4-4215-b10d-31112d5b9384%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to