On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 02:03:10PM +0200, Simone Carletti wrote:
>
> Yes, that was my initial concern. Of course, these values are "fields" but I
> found the t: additional syntax to be more clear and to leave doors open for
> further or future enhancements because you are loosely coupling the syntax
> with the implementation.
>
> I would really love to use t:, but I can live without it since it is just a
> bit of syntactic sugar.
Hello Simone,
I prefer
${tmp.something}
${f:tmp.something}
${field:tmp.something}
over
${t:something}
> Agreed, but if you decide to implement the ability to access the fields
> using a custom notation (instead of nested fields), then I would suggest to
> use $t as you did with $f -> fields and $v -> variables.
$f and $v are clearly mapped to two different/orthogonal concepts, while $t
would be a sub-concept of fields.
I'm giving it a night of sleep. ${t:x} would be cheap to implement side by side
with ${tmp.x}. I like the latter because it is explicitely a subfield.
Granted, syntactic sugar isn't that bad to have.
I'll implement ${tmp.x} (and possibly ${t:x}) tomorrow morning.
Thanks again,
--
John Mettraux - http://jmettraux.wordpress.com
--
you received this message because you are subscribed to the "ruote users" group.
to post : send email to [email protected]
to unsubscribe : send email to [email protected]
more options : http://groups.google.com/group/openwferu-users?hl=en
