Note that the usual concern about $wikify is that it can have significant overhead.
However, in the above use-case, it isn’t being called multiple times within a $list widget loop, nor is it processing overly complex wikitext syntax, so the overhead is reasonably minimal.
Of course. I’m greatly in your debt for all the wonderful tools you offer, as well as for all your help in this forum. If I can give a little back, I’m very happy!
Sure. It will just take a slightly more sophisticated regular expression, plus another search-replace for the arrow:
I notice in your latest response to @Mohammad, that you are using $wikify in your <<formula>> macro.
However, @Brian_Radspinner’s code (which you marked as “solution”) is more efficient, since it avoid using $wikify.
Combining his solution with the tweaks I suggested for handling whitespace and wikilinks, the best <<formula>> macro definition would be:
\define formula(form)
\define tv-wikilinks() no
\define digits() ([A-Za-z])(\d+)
\define replacement() $1<sub>$2</sub>
\whitespace trim
<$let out={{{ [<__form__>search-replace:g:regexp<digits>,<replacement>search-replace:g:[->],[→]] }}}>
<<out>>
\end
Note also how the formula(form) macro definition contains some single-line LOCAL “utility” macro definitions for tv-wikilinks(), digits(), and replacement(). This allows you to make the <<formula>> macro global (by tagging the tiddler with $:/tags/Macro, while still using those utility macros internally, without adding any clutter to the global macro namespace.
When I had the other problem (solved by <$macrocall>), I was struggling and playing with all sorts of things. When this was finally working, it was a <$wikify> version that was in place. I will switch this over and update my previous post with a more efficient version.
Ah, yes, of course. I should be doing that more everywhere. I’m always bemoaning the lack of true let bindings in JS; I really should be using them when they’re available!
This is now quite nice. Thank you very much for your help!
I’m curious whether something I’m often doing for macros is common and whether there are good reasons not to do it. My actual version of that macro tiddler looks something like this:
That is, I keep test cases inside the same tiddler that holds my macro, and use it to check whether it’s still working on save. (I rarely use preview mode.) Is there any strong reason to avoid this, outside the obvious concern about clutter and wiki size?
I have heard in the past that if using global macros the content after the definitions is ignored. This can be tested with the getvariable operator (the content is gone) because macros are just variables. But if you stop to think the define{s} are setting a macro/variable, no other part of the tiddler could be involved, unless it were transcluded.
Also consider choosing between the following tags;
I’m pretty sure that’s the case. The main question was whether there was a good reason for tiddlers tagged $:/tags/Macro to contain only macro definitions. The answer seems to be that no, there is no reason for that.
I had not heard of the latter two until I recently saw you mention them in another thread. If I read their docs correctly, these are mainly meant to avoid cluttering up the global namespace with things that only need to be used in the view/view-body. Useful I guess, and perhaps they have some minor performance benefits, and as most of my work is done in there, I supposed I could choose that, but I wonder if it makes sense to use these for generic tools like the <<formula>> above, especially in a plugin.
