Every additional directive, syntax, and configuration option complicates VTL. They all add to what someone needs to know to be able to read someone else's template. And each new directive means one less valid macro name or schmoo string that may need changing or escaping. I would actually love to see a decrease in the number of options and directives in 2.0, though this is not the direction things have been heading. These are my general concerns; i'll open new threads to handle the specific issues...
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 5:35 AM, Byron Foster <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Feb 17, 2009, at 23:19 , Claude Brisson wrote: > >> On mar, 2009-02-17 at 20:56 -0700, Byron Foster wrote: >>> >>> I believe firmly in not compromising the simplicity of VTL at the >>> expense of additional functionality, and I think it's great that non- >>> programmers can be productive in it. I believe that all the changes I >>> have proposed or implemented are consistent with that. However, there >>> are also sophisticated users of Velocity, I hope, that can make use of >>> the additional control, and with the additional control make VTL >>> templates more readable and maintainable. I think these two uses of >>> Velocity can easily coexist. >> >> Sophisticated users always find a way. >> >> #foreach($foo in $outer) >> #foreach($bar in $inner) >> #if($goAway) #set($leave = true) #end >> #break >> #end >> #if($leave) #break >> #end > > Yea, I won't argue #break functionality, as stated in the issue I don't > really think it is necessary either. I would say something more specific > like #return, or as referenced in the issue, the use of an 'index' keyword > in #foreach. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
