Here is my 5-level-deep tiddler collection beneath a tag á la Mark:
\define tiddlertree-level5() [tagging[]]
\define tiddlertree-level4() [tagging[]]
[tagging[]subfilter]
\define tiddlertree-level3() [tagging[]]
[tagging[]subfilter]
\define tiddlertree-level2() [tagging[]]
[tagging[]subfilter]
\
I have to admit that I am beginning to like Mark's solution with the
numbered subfilter definitions, even though I unfairly called it "not
really pretty". The neat thing about it is that adding another level of
"pseudo-recursion" is very easy and very clear. Putting everything into a
single fil
Have a look in TW-Script! A solution by Eric Shulman shows how to exclude a
tag and how simply prevent a recursion loop! much simpler than the official
toc macro!
https://kookma.github.io/TW-Scripts/#A%20Simple%20Recursive%20TOC%20Macro
Best wishes
Mohammad
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 10:11 PM Jean
If you write your own recursion macro, you can put braces around each item
in the output. Then set that output to a name inside a wikify widget. Then
use that variable with the enlist operator to create your list that you
want to use in an intersection. I just posted some similar code in another
Yeah, the TOC macros are very clever in avoiding recursion. It's hard to
imagine putting all this into a filter expression...
On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 8:31:06 PM UTC+2 Yaisog Bonegnasher wrote:
> Hi all,
> thanks for the comments.
> I was careful about tagging, not to create tag loops, but I
Hi all,
thanks for the comments.
I was careful about tagging, not to create tag loops, but I can see how
that would be a problem. You'd have the same problem with the TOC macros –
which are recursive – though, wouldn't you (at least with the types that
are always fully expanded)?
If Mark is righ
This is a good point. The built-in table-of-contents macro appears to avoid
the issue by excluding the current tiddler at each level, which could be
applied to my example above:
\define toc-body(tag,sort:"",itemClassFilter,exclude,path)
<$list filter="""[all[shadows+tiddlers]tag<__tag__>!has[
About recursive macro, they may be possible, but the problem is how to stop
the recursion. Your example works if there is no loop created by tagging.
The problem is we don't have a proper <> macro to decide what to do
(control recursion call in that case). Or how do you do that?
Le dimanche 18
Update, I did another experiment and subfilter[] does work the way you were
using it. I'm guessing Mark is right and it tries to create the filter
before it actually runs it and sees there are no results.
On Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 2:36:33 PM UTC-5 Soren Bjornstad wrote:
> I've never tried to
I've never tried to do a recursive* filter*, so I don't know what's
technically possible (though I've never seen someone try to use multiple
filter runs in *subfilter* and am a bit suspicious that the second run is
doing a tagging[] on everything in your wiki). But recursive macros are
easy and
My guess is that it's trying to build the complete filter even before it
runs, so that's why you hit the recursive limit. That is, it's not running
one filter, running the next, testing, etc. It's trying to build the whole
thing, which has no way of exiting.
Since you know about how many levels
11 matches
Mail list logo
