I just discovered the other thing that causes me problems: lack of proximity.
I do find it difficult looking at "Tag 4" in that filter and not seeing the filter operator right before it. So I see the comma, and I backtrack away from "Tag 4" to figure out the filter operator is "tag". That back and forth, like long scrolls up and down in a browser window, or back and forward buttons on browsers, all cause dysfunction for this kid. Thanks, Álvaro. You just helped me understand a little something there about how I process things, or rather when I can't process things... On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 1:28:11 PM UTC-3 Charlie Veniot wrote: > Oh man, that is pretty awesome. I can see the majority of the folk loving > that. > > But you're right, for my disability, that isn't explicit enough for me to > distinguish what's going on. > > Too many ways of specifying individual tags, and I start getting into some > cognitive overload. I'm the same way when facing a Chinese food buffet, > always holding up the line because of too many choices. > > Regardless, that is pretty awesome for normal folk who can bounce between > the different ways the tag operator can be used. > > > On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 12:39:53 PM UTC-3 Álvaro wrote: > >> It works fine. I tried to find a alternative, but I wasn't lucky. >> >> When I resee your filter, I remember about the multiple parameters in >> filter operator with commas (from last version, 5.1.23). And we can add a >> second filter run that it applies your filter to result of first run. Then >> you can rewrite your filter something like this (in filtering transclusion) >> {{{ [tag[Tag 1]*,*[Tag 2],[Tag 3],[Tag 4]] >> :filter[tags[]count[]compare:eq[4]] }}} >> >> Although maybe it be less understandble for you. >> >> >> El viernes, 24 de septiembre de 2021 a las 10:59:50 UTC+2, >> jn.pierr...@gmail.com escribió: >> >>> That's fine by me. >>> >>> And yes filters are fun even if sometimes a bit tricky. >>> >>> So for the fun of it, you could arrange your filter so that the input >>> would be the 4 tags you want. >>> >>> something like that: >>> >>> \define fun(tags) >>> <$set variable=occ filter="[[$tags]....put your filter code >>> here...count[]]">Seen <<occ>> tiddlers with tags $tags$</$set> >>> \end >>> >>> Sometimes, this fun has you coding javascript filter operator. Would >>> this be the case here? I have not thought about it yet. >>> >>> cheers, >>> >>> >>> Le vendredi 24 septembre 2021 à 03:54:34 UTC+2, cj.v...@gmail.com a >>> écrit : >>> >>>> Me and my interest in brain age games, I couldn't help but play around >>>> with a filter to find all tiddlers that have all four specified tags, but >>>> only those four tags. >>>> >>>> You'll find three tiddlers in the attached json. Download the file, >>>> and drag into some TiddlyWiki instance (TiddlyWiki.com !) to take a gander. >>>> >>>> There are all kinds of ways to go about doing this sort of thing, with >>>> some filter operators maybe better suited, but I find the result a bit >>>> easier for me to understand (more logical to me, or maybe more >>>> self-explanatory, because of the way my brain works, I suppose.) Maybe >>>> just a difference between top-down view vs bottom-up view or something ... >>>> >>>> Yeah, I find filters fun. >>>> >>> -- 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/3ba7651c-a163-4b98-be43-ad9089a10209n%40googlegroups.com.