As far as I can remember it's needed, when you use the macro. You should be good, if you use the following wrapper code for both macros `<<dailytask>>` and `<<togglers>>`
In the mean time you should use the $let-widget <https://tiddlywiki.com/#LetWidget> instead of the $vars-widget. ``` <$let x={{!!toggled}} y={{!!barray}}> <!-- your macro call comes here --> </$let> ``` Info: The backticks for the code here are only needed to be imported in the right way at talk.tiddlywiki.org So you don't need them for your code. On Friday, July 22, 2022 at 12:54:58 AM UTC+2 [email protected] wrote: > Is this macro usable with latest versions of TW. If it's usable, where > should the code suggested by pmario in the posts above be added ? > On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 2:07:44 PM UTC+5:30 TiddlyTweeter wrote: > >> Ciao Jeremy ... >> >>> Jeremy: | do plan to update the release note with a more prominent >>> warning of the impact of this change. >>> >>> TT: Good! IMHO, it might also be worth mentioning that their tool of >>> concern would continue to *run fine under previous versions of TW*. For >>> working apps mostly it is NOT needed you upgrade! >>> >>> >> >>> From the core perspective we really want people to upgrade actively used >>> wikis to each new version because it’s expensive and complex to offer >>> support for old versions. For example, if we had a user on v5.1.23 who was >>> holding back updating to v5.2.0 then that user wouldn’t be able to benefit >>> from bug fixes in subsequent releases. If they reported a bug that was then >>> fixed by the core team they wouldn’t be able to get the fix without >>> updating. >>> >> >> Right. I do broadly understand that. BUT in practice it is a bit of a >> puzzle too. Older, non-complaint plugins, by authors no longer active, >> could end up ESTRANGED. >> >> *(FYI, in THIS thread, I do see PMario work hard for a compatible >> solution for the OP's user problematic. Maybe that is enough for these edge >> cases? I.E: a dedicated dev solves the issue functionally. What he is doing >> is solving a problem for the "absent landlord". One "good enough" to work >> for the moment.)* >> >> IMHO, I agree you should not go backwards. It would make no sense and >> would be ineffectual and serendipitous if and when it worked. >> >> *However* the latest version is, crudely speaking, an "interruptus". >> That may throw some plugins (BUT I have no idea *how many*; it may just >> be a manageable handful?). But IS the "break with past" minor or serious? >> >> SO, to be practical. I'd say it is still a bit unclear how much of an >> ISSUE all this is. >> >> Just thoughts from a non-programmer. >> >> Best wishes >> Josiah >> > -- 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/310d893b-9c72-43b1-a69d-b817f7e51eedn%40googlegroups.com.
