@CodaCoder perhaps what you ask for is feasible, I don’t know. However to me it appears to be a “category error” trying to nest functions in this way. I will explain why I think this;
A function in synonymous with a filter. Thats how I remember that a \fffunction is a fffilter. Thus the idea of a filter containing a procedure/macro/another filter is already well known, we nest filters this way;
When we “nest filters” we do so using filter notation such as [subfilter<anotherFilter>]
[<macroname parameter>]
and now with custom operators defined in other functions [my.func[]]
, [function[myfunc]]
and others.
If you wish to do the nesting, you are asking for, you can just use a procedure, custom widget etc…
On one hand
It seems to me a function, which is a filter, can only contain filter notated information, because it will be used as a filter in one or more places.
- You could however construct a large string of filter notation, in a procedure, and use that in a function but not the other way around.
On the other hand;
Define (macros), Procedures, custom widgets are designed to contain any tiddlywiki script including wikitext, widgets, other macros and procedures. This is where we can nest things.
Since we can now nest pragmas inside procedure definitions, and custom widgets we can also nest the definitions of these different things including functions inside these.