On Friday, May 15, 2020 at 2:18:21 PM UTC+2, PMario wrote: If you try to establish *many *plugin-related fields. I personally would go > with a postfix. show-info.psat ... So I can use show-info.wl ... OR we > both agree on the behaviour of how show-info should work ;) >
As i wrote this, I had an idea. ... What if plugin authors agree on a defined behaviour for new fields. This would allow us to use the same field name with multiple plugins. This may lead to "total confusion" but imo it's worth some thoughts. eg: field name: show-info values: yes.psat no.wl So my filter code could be: [contains:show-info[no.wl]] and your [contains:show-info[yes.psat]] This can only work, if every plugin-author would work that way from the beginning. .. It wouldn't be possible to test for "empty value" anymore, because an other plugin would have a value in the field. That wouldn't be a problem for me personally, but may be for others. Adding new values can be done with: append and removing a value can be done with: remove. ... A _new_ toggle listops may be a convenience function. The above would only make sense for "yes / no" like fields. just some thoughts mario -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tiddlywiki+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/219be745-4baf-494b-9204-856a0a272c85%40googlegroups.com.
