On Wednesday 29 August 2007 17:08, Frederik Holljen wrote:
> On Wednesday 29 August 2007, Raymond Bosman wrote:
> > > > Personally, I compare each template with a function. The {use}
> > > > variables are the function arguments. I think all the solutions we
> > > > proposed are used in one or another way in a programming language.
> > >
> > > Yes, this is what I do as well. Can you give me examples of the
> > > original three proposals in programming languages? The last two have
> > > parallels to programming languages except you don't know in which
> > > context your template will be called and so don't know which globals
> > > will be available....
> >
> > Solution 1, 2, and 3 can be seen as a nested function definition.
> >
> > def template_p(a,b,c,d,e,f):
> >
> > def template_q(a):
> > print a
> >
> > def template_r():
> > print b
> > print c
> >
> >
> > Function template_p is called from the user application; thus has all
> > variables. template_p does an {include "template_q" send a}. That
> > template includes template_r. All those sub-includes have access to the
> > variables from the top function scope.
>
> This is not the same since the sub methods are created within the context
> of each other., and the variables passed implicitly are set from this
> context. Also, the methods are only available in the context in which they
> were created. This is not the case with the template definitions, they are
> just loose "function" definitions which can be called from anywhere.
Okay, it is not *exactly* the same. But think about the concept. The next
example comes closer?
def user_application_send(a,b,c,d,e,f):
def template_q(a):
print a
template_r() # {include "r"}
def template_r():
print b
print c
Ray San
--
Components mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ez.no/mailman/listinfo/components
