Hi Evan, I'm in favour of your proposal. But I would like it in a more backwards compatible way, if possible.
On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 8:01:05 AM UTC+1, Evan Balster wrote: > > Now, this *does* look basically the same as a macro call. > What's the problem, with making it exactly look like the existing syntax and just implement the performance improvement? <$function $name="tablerows" filter> \define tablerows(filter:<default>) </$function> \end Doesn't make a difference for me. We just would need to change the macro parser. ... right? > The differences are crucial, though: lower parsing and refresh overhead, > only <<one syntax>> for variables, and no gotchas with quoting, whitespace, > order-of-operations or open markup. > IMO those are implementation details, that could be implemented in a backwards compatible way. ... right? > As far as I'm concerned, the similarity in usage could make transitioning > trivial in many cases and the more consistent behavior could make > TiddlyWiki "programming" much easier to learn. > I personally think, that \define xx(filter) \end is much easier to read and less to type than: <$function $name="xx" filter> </$function> just some thoughts mario -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWikiDev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywikidev. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywikidev/b2d5d275-cd0c-4153-8696-8dc126005d21%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
