Re: Proposal for FREEMARKER-84: More flexible handlig of missing templates

Over .get_optional_template(name[, options]), (https://freemarker.apache.org/builds/fm2.3.28/ref_specvar.html#ref_specvar_get_optional_template) I have also added: - .caller_template_name (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FREEMARKER-83)

Re: Proposal for FREEMARKER-84: More flexible handlig of missing templates

.get_optional_template(name[, options]) now implemented in the 2.3-gae and 2.3 branches. Testing/feedback is welcome! See commit: https://github.com/apache/incubator-freemarker/commit/51c2476621809d8f4183f23e894be0106cabe810 You can find some examples in the tests:

Re: Proposal for FREEMARKER-84: More flexible handlig of missing templates

I feel clumsy now :) Thank you for the explanation, I'm beginning to understand this a bit. I'll follow up on the JIRA On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 7:57 PM, Daniel Dekany wrote: > Saturday, February 17, 2018, 2:36:37 PM, Taher Alkhateeb wrote: > >> Ahh I see, I guess that's the

Re: Proposal for FREEMARKER-84: More flexible handlig of missing templates

Saturday, February 17, 2018, 11:56:43 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: > Hi, > > I must say it's much easier for me to understand Jacopo's solution. That's not really a solution though, rather a work around that works in some cases, but not in others. Jacopo basically says, as far as I see, that we

Re: Proposal for FREEMARKER-84: More flexible handlig of missing templates

Wrong link, sorry, correcting. http://jinja.pocoo.org/docs/2.10/templates/#include On Feb 17, 2018 11:34 AM, "Taher Alkhateeb" wrote: > For a point of comparison, the python jinja2 template engine (widely used) > has an "include" directive that has an attribute

Re: Proposal for FREEMARKER-84: More flexible handlig of missing templates

For a point of comparison, the python jinja2 template engine (widely used) has an "include" directive that has an attribute named "ignore missing" [1]. I also remember seeing similar behavior in other engines. So I guess perhaps from a usability point of view this seems to be a desired feature by

Re: Proposal for FREEMARKER-84: More flexible handlig of missing templates

On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 8:04 AM, Daniel Dekany wrote: > Some more opinions guys? Especially as we got one opinion against the > feature. > Just to clarify my opinion: I am not against this feature; I simply don't consider it a must since there are some workaround to get a

Re: Proposal for FREEMARKER-84: More flexible handlig of missing templates

Some more opinions guys? Especially as we got one opinion against the feature. Tuesday, February 13, 2018, 9:59:41 AM, Daniel Dekany wrote: > Tuesday, February 13, 2018, 9:28:18 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: > >> For less common use cases like this my preference is to defer the >> implementation

Re: Proposal for FREEMARKER-84: More flexible handlig of missing templates

Tuesday, February 13, 2018, 9:28:18 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: > For less common use cases like this my preference is to defer the > implementation to the template developer rather than adding complexity to > the language. > If I understand the use case that originated this request, something >

Re: Proposal for FREEMARKER-84: More flexible handlig of missing templates

For less common use cases like this my preference is to defer the implementation to the template developer rather than adding complexity to the language. If I understand the use case that originated this request, something similar could be achieved with a simple trick like the following: 1) the

Re: Proposal for FREEMARKER-84: More flexible handlig of missing templates

Monday, February 12, 2018, 12:52:26 AM, jpr...@seznam.cz wrote: > Opinion: > > It seems reasonable. As you suggested, it also seems a little advanced in > style for most cases. > It's very flexible, a bit verbose for common use, a bit of a learning curve > for template author. > > I would prefer

Re: Proposal for FREEMARKER-84: More flexible handlig of missing templates

Opinion: It seems reasonable. As you suggested, it also seems a little advanced in style for most cases. It's very flexible, a bit verbose for common use, a bit of a learning curve for template author. I would prefer a shorter name, like ".get_template". Isn't it up to the template author to