On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 1:48:33 AM UTC+2 TW Tones wrote: In the original post I was placing under consideration the idea that a > convention would be that a field such as "discussion" may also have a > discussion_name and discussion_target field. What ever handling I do for > "discussion" I can test for the existence or or attempt to get the values > in one or more "discussion_" fields.
For me this looks like a mechanism, for inheritance. ... Similar to a possibility to define a field, that behaves like the "tags" field. eg: my-tags..type: tags .... Which would look up the "setters" and "getters" from the tags field to read and write there. similar: due-date..type: date ... Has the same functionality as created and modified. So the existence of due-date..type implies the existence of due-date.. and hides them both from the edit-template. So due-date..macros: $:/tiddlerName contains the macros, that are "inherited" If ..macros doesn't exist it assumes tha name to be $:/fields/macros/<type>/ In norm al cases ..macros is used for development and $:/.. is used for production. ... Just brainstorming -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/7d7b6af4-eb3b-4516-9d69-f4b58020d0d7n%40googlegroups.com.
