Tk without Tcl?
TK, or the secret to effortless writing (2024)
21–26 of 26 posts
Re: TK, or the secret to effortless writing (2024)
#22[dead]
Re: TK, or the secret to effortless writing (2024)
#23I just used to use: ????
It server the same purpose, placeholder for a word I couldn't think of, and wouldn't naturely appear in the text. Plus for me I could hammer out the four characters in frustration too, for not being able to think of the word/term I wanted.
Re: TK, or the secret to effortless writing (2024)
#24> The obvious question that comes from this is why not just type TODO, add a few question marks, or highlight the text that needs to be looked at?
Because we know from the software engineering discipline that TODOs never get done, so the safe thing is to avoid that with TK.
Re: TK, or the secret to effortless writing (2024)
#25Could you instead use any two numerical digits? Then you've got a tagging system with up to 100 tags. This assumes you're writing according to guidelines that insist you spell out all numbers. i.e. 58 is always intentionally "fifty-eight", so "58" must be your own meta text.
> writing according to guidelines that insist you spell out all numbers
What? There exists such a guideline, which is not limited to very small numbers that can be written in at most two words?
That would have you writing things like one million, four hundred fifty-three thousand, one hundred fifty-eight instead of 1,453,158.
"TK: for the thousand one hundred and eleventh time, ditch this idiotic editing job"
Re: TK, or the secret to effortless writing (2024)
#26Could you instead use any two numerical digits? Then you've got a tagging system with up to 100 tags. This assumes you're writing according to guidelines that insist you spell out all numbers. i.e. 58 is always intentionally "fifty-eight", so "58" must be your own meta text.
> writing according to guidelines that insist you spell out all numbers What? There exists such a guideline, which is not limited to very small numbers that can be written in at most two words? That would have you writing things like one million, four hundred fifty-three thousand, one hundred fifty-eight instead of 1,453,158. "TK: for the thousand one hundred and eleventh time, ditch this idiotic editing job"
No. I was thinking of AP style [1], but I was mistaken. Anyway, it's not like these guidelines are at the level of consistency you're probably expecting. I will merely take inspiration and strictly spell single-digit numbers "zero" through "nine" and otherwise apply leading zeroes to miscellaneous annoyances (dates, time, etc.). The "real" style guidelines have absurd exceptions that are completely irrelevant to me.
My parent comment wasn't an entirely unreasonable idea though [2]. There's generally a less than one percent chance of a high value two-digit number occurring. Three digits and above are even less likely.
[1]: https://apstylebook.com/ask_the_editors/style_guidance
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford%27s_law#Generalization...