Yeah, I know, I actually just had a chat with Andrew Nurse about it. Anyway, it would be nice to consider it to v2 :) So I've submitted it - http://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/feedback/details/623833/i-wish-razor-removed-half-of-the-opening-curly-brackets
On Nov 22, 7:27 pm, Ayende Rahien <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
