Don Hopkins wrote:
>
> To be more accurate:
Nope ;-)
> SOME templating languages were never designed to be procedural languages.
...if a language is designed to be a procedural language, then it ain't a templating
language...
cheers,
Chris
___
Zo
From: "Chris Withers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Zope-dev] 'not:' kludgey?!
> > >> For the reasons 'else' was invented in the first place,
> > >
> > > 'else' in what context?!
> >
> > Meaning,
Marc Lindahl wrote:
>
> on 5/14/02 4:41 AM, Chris Withers at [EMAIL PROTECTED] scrivened:
> >
> > Okay, repeat the mantra over to yourself:
> >
> > Templating languages are not procedural languages
>
> Sounds nice, but what does it mean? AFAIK a procedural language is
> something that has a def
on 5/14/02 4:41 AM, Chris Withers at [EMAIL PROTECTED] scrivened:
>
> Okay, repeat the mantra over to yourself:
>
> Templating languages are not procedural languages
Sounds nice, but what does it mean? AFAIK a procedural language is
something that has a definite order of execution... How does
Marc Lindahl wrote:
>
> on 5/13/02 3:11 PM, Chris Withers at [EMAIL PROTECTED] scrivened:
>
> >>
> >> For the reasons 'else' was invented in the first place,
> >
> > 'else' in what context?!
>
> Meaning, in procedural languages.
Okay, repeat the mantra over to yourself:
Templating languages
on 5/13/02 3:11 PM, Chris Withers at [EMAIL PROTECTED] scrivened:
>>
>> For the reasons 'else' was invented in the first place,
>
> 'else' in what context?!
Meaning, in procedural languages.
>
>> I guess: prone to
>> errors, inefficient, bulky.
>
> Can you give any material that actually
Marc Lindahl wrote:
>
> on 5/10/02 11:32 AM, Chris Withers at [EMAIL PROTECTED] scrivened:
>
> > Marc Lindahl wrote:
> >>
> >> Don't you have that now with the kludgey 'not' construct?
> >
> > What is kludgey about the 'not:' construct?!
>
> For the reasons 'else' was invented in the first plac
on 5/10/02 11:32 AM, Chris Withers at [EMAIL PROTECTED] scrivened:
> Marc Lindahl wrote:
>>
>> Don't you have that now with the kludgey 'not' construct?
>
> What is kludgey about the 'not:' construct?!
For the reasons 'else' was invented in the first place, I guess: prone to
errors, inefficie
Marc Lindahl wrote:
>
> Don't you have that now with the kludgey 'not' construct?
What is kludgey about the 'not:' construct?!
cheers,
Chris
___
Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No cross po
