With mod_dtcl at its current 0.8 level isn't it close enough to "day 1"
for fundamental conventions to be switched if it makes sense?
As additional examples of the issue at hand, AOLserver (entirely
Tcl-based) uses both <% ... %> and <script language=tcl
...>...</script>. Scriptics'/Ajuba's TclHttpd grabs everything between
matched [ .. ] (greedy regexp) and sends it to Tcl for
evaluation/substitution, avoiding completely any form of <? .. ?>
wrapping.
Perhaps this notion of picking a different symbol for < .. > helps in an
environment where multiple languages and/or dynamic script processors
within a single document are supported (is there such a place?), but
generally it seems to be an indication of the language, and <?lang ...
?> is less obscure and possibly more portable.
Consistency (and deference to XML) surely is in the best interest of
everyone, agreed?
--Paul
|
Whose day 1?
I think adding <?tcl support might be a good thing, but <+ is surely
in too many existing scripts now. >>> Mark O'Connor < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> 01/12/01 08:22am
>>> The PHP convention of "<?php" is new and was introduced
to PHP for compatibility with XML. ASP uses "<%" tags, PHP uses
"<?" tags. I would agree with Bob to begin using meaningful tags from day
one of the TCL module. Regards, MArk > I noticed that
you are using <+ +> which for some reason gets lost if >
you > have a long line of Tcl, IMO. > > How about using the
PHP convention: > > <?tcl > > ?> Just a
suggestion but I think it would help readability. > > Bob --
Mark
O'Connor
Phone / Fax: +41 1 430 4136 Tellcare
GmbH
Mobile: +41 79 469
8855
Email:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]
