Re: [Zope-dev] 'not:' kludgey?!
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 ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] 'not:' kludgey?!
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 are not procedural languages Templating languages are not procedural languages Templating languages are not procedural languages (etc) *grinz* I guess: prone to errors, inefficient, bulky. Can you give any material that actually backs up these sweeping claims? ;-) Prone to errors: when changing the condition, have to duplicated edits in 2 places, No you don't. Do I have to say that a third time? ;-) Inefficient: have to evaluate an expression twice (unless someone makes a jit compiler!) I guess I do... :-P Bulky: in terms of taking more space in the source file, without clarifying what's being done. That's a bit woolly, gimme some concrete examples... Yes you did, and re-reading the TAL wiki (http://www.zope.org//Wikis/DevSite/Projects/ZPT/TAL%20Specification%201.2) it's clear that your approach is the one the language is designed for. Also, your approach can easily accommodate other logic structures like case statement. Well, I guess I'm convinced! *grinz* Chris ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] 'not:' kludgey?!
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 a templating language differ? Can you give any material that actually backs up these sweeping claims? ;-) Prone to errors: when changing the condition, have to duplicated edits in 2 places, No you don't. Do I have to say that a third time? ;-) Referring to, not the construct you exemplified, but the previous one in the thread (can't find it in the archive right now) ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] 'not:' kludgey?!
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 definite order of execution... How does a templating language differ? A template language is all about filling in holes in a template. This should be thought of logically as happening 'all at once', so _not_ in a definite order of execution... cheers, Chris ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] 'not:' kludgey?!
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, in procedural languages. Okay, repeat the mantra over to yourself: Templating languages are not procedural languages Templating languages are not procedural languages Templating languages are not procedural languages To be more accurate: SOME templating languages were never designed to be procedural languages. SOME templating languages were never designed to be procedural languages. SOME templating languages were never designed to be procedural languages. -Don ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] 'not:' kludgey?!
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, inefficient, bulky. The biggest thing I see is: isn't linked to the other construct, so it's prone to errors when editing the conditions. ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] 'not:' kludgey?!
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 place, 'else' in what context?! I guess: prone to errors, inefficient, bulky. Can you give any material that actually backs up these sweeping claims? ;-) The biggest thing I see is: isn't linked to the other construct, so it's prone to errors when editing the conditions. Well, I've already shown the way I'd do this which only has the condition in one place cheers, Chris ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] 'not:' kludgey?!
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 backs up these sweeping claims? ;-) Prone to errors: when changing the condition, have to duplicated edits in 2 places, so you could make an error which would be hard to track down. Inefficient: have to evaluate an expression twice (unless someone makes a jit compiler!) Bulky: in terms of taking more space in the source file, without clarifying what's being done. The biggest thing I see is: isn't linked to the other construct, so it's prone to errors when editing the conditions. Well, I've already shown the way I'd do this which only has the condition in one place Yes you did, and re-reading the TAL wiki (http://www.zope.org//Wikis/DevSite/Projects/ZPT/TAL%20Specification%201.2) it's clear that your approach is the one the language is designed for. Also, your approach can easily accommodate other logic structures like case statement. Well, I guess I'm convinced! ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] 'not:' kludgey?!
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 posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
