On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 11:29:25 PM UTC+2, Jed Carty wrote: > > I gave in and just edited the tags filter, it turns out it took much less > than I expected. So you can use [tags:foo[]] to get the list of things in > the foo field instead of in the tags field. >
Good working! At this stage I think there is no problem because, as I see it, this stage is mostly about defining the concept and making sure people can try it. Besides, with arbitrary field names one must probably... Actually, let me say this first: For field creation, there must be a safety check. I just tested to create a field named "text" and it worked "too well". It should be simple to block overwrite of the standard field names (there exists such a check when you try to create a field named "text" in a standard tiddler) and is should be simple to block globally defined GenTags fields, but what if I have "mytiddlerlocalfield" in MyTiddler...? Now, back to what I was about to say; such a safety check is probably (!) also necessary to ensure that fields are not titled same as filter operators! ...but the fact that we don't have this check for regular fields makes me unsure (cos we don't, right?). At the moment I fail to concoct a good example of how this could be a problem but considering how a filter consists of both operators and field names... surely this is a risk, right? Assuming it is, then a tool like GenTags will increase the risk tremendously. <:-) -- 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 post to this group, send email to tiddlywiki@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/ebc27e0c-06a5-43b9-9e0f-dd2d3a7a291b%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
