John, That would create ambiguous grammar More than that, Razor is basically a translator to C#, so it requires the C# syntax.
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 2:49 AM, John Simons <[email protected]>wrote: > I think is about time we say goodbye and thanks for inspiring MS to > build Razor to NVelocity :) > Razor is looking good (minus too many curly brackets :( ) > I wish they removed half of the opening curly brackets from code like: > @foreach(var p in product) { > ... > } > What is the point of the opening bracke...@? > Razor should support: > @foreach(var p in product) > .... > } > > Hamilton, please let them know :) > > > Cheers > John > > On Nov 22, 11:29 am, Henry Conceição <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Well, on NVelocity (and other ve's that doesn't support it) people > > will have to go only with the dynamic approach. > > > > Does the clr's dynamic works on NVelocity? I don't know. But a common > > dictionary can act as propertybag there, using the nvelocity > > dictionary syntax. Other poco objects would be binded on NVelocity > > pretty straightforward. > > > > PS: NVelocity support is not on my plans. It'll be very welcome if > > anyone wants to step in and work on it, but I'm not planning to do any > > work related to it. > > > > Cheers, > > Henry Conceição > > > > On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 2:59 AM, John Simons <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I do like the approach you taking Henry :) > > > Regrading statically typed views, do all VE support this? I'm asking > > > because I know for sure that NVelocity does not!, on the other hand > > > NVelocity = Razor so I assume we dropping NVelocity right? > > > > > Cheers > > > John > > > > > On Nov 18, 8:27 am, Henry Conceição <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Hi folks, > > > > >> I'm playing the view, viewengine and would like some input about > > >> passing values to the view. > > > > >> On mr2 we're used to use the propertybag to store the values for the > > >> view. I do like more this approach than have a view constrained by a > > >> typed ViewModel. > > > > >> So, my ideia now is to send a single object to the view. No contract > > >> to follow. It can be the (new) dynamic PropertyBag or a poco. > > > > >> Do you think that this is enough? Or we really should have the ability > > >> of create views statically typed? > > > > >> Cheers, > > >> Henry Conceição > > > > > -- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Castle Project Development List" group. > > > To post to this group, send email to > [email protected]. > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<castle-project-devel%[email protected]> > . > > > For more options, visit this group athttp:// > groups.google.com/group/castle-project-devel?hl=en. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Castle Project Development List" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > . > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<castle-project-devel%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-devel?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Castle Project Development List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-devel?hl=en.
