Hi,
I've seen a few ErlTL enhancement proposals and I'd like to bring them
all together and add some of my ideas to the mix so hopefully we can
end up with an improved ErlTL. I think the current ErlTL is a good
start but after using it for a while I saw some areas where it can use
some refinement. Specifically, I think ErlTL could use new syntax for
the following expressions: if, case, and map. Below is an example
showing the use of the current and proposed syntax (for 'if' and
'map'):
current:
<%@ index(Album, Songs, ShowSongs) %>
album: <% Album %><br/>
<% if ShowSongs ->
songs(S);
true ->
[]
end %>
<%@ songs(Songs) %>
songs: <br/>
<% [song(S) || S <- Songs] %>
<%@ song(Song) %>
song: <% Song %><br/>
Improved:
<%@ index(Album, Songs, ShowSongs) %>
album: <% Album %><br/>
<et:if expr="ShowSongs">
songs:<br/>
<et:map expr="S <- Songs">
song: <% S %><br/>
</et:map>
</et:if>
In more detaul, the new syntax would be:
if:
<et:if expr="Expr">
<et:elseif expr="Expr"> (optional)
<et:else> (optional)
</et:if>
case:
<et:switch expr="Expr">
<et:case expr="Expr">
stuff...
</et:case>
<et:case expr="Expr">
stuf..
</et:case>
<et:default> (optional)
stuff...
</et:default>
</et:switch>
map:
<et:map expr="Elem <- List, Elem =/= foo">stuff <% Elem %></et:map>
This syntax is pretty self explanatory. All three constructs would be
translated to their Erlang equivalents by the ErlTL parser.
I think this is a step in the right direction, but I'm not sure that
this is the ideal syntax so I'll be happy to hear some other
suggestions.
Thanks,
Yariv
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"erlyweb" 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/erlyweb?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
