No big deal, I wouldn't "fix" it since the workaround is quite
reasonable. The part about $secret(1) is really amazing, and hopefully
this email will be found by anyone who has the same problems.
Thanks for everything Andy!!
Tosh
Andy Wardley wrote:
Tosh Cooey wrote:
> So of course you *might* expect it to work like this:
[...]
> But it doesn't.
Hi Tosh,
Hmmm, yes. That's strange.
Ah yes. Now I see. It *does* work if you do this.
VARIABLES = {
badguys => {
'C.I.A' => ['American', 'Dirty'],
'MI6' => ['British', '007'],
'F.S.B' => ['Russian', 'K.G.B.'] }
},
}
[% FOREACH secret IN badguys.keys %]
[% FOREACH keyword IN badguys.$secret %]
[% keyword %]
[% END %]
[% END %]
The reason is that when you've got a variable that already has a dot
in it, like this:
badguys.$secret
then the parser turns it into this:
$stash->get([badguys, 0, $stash->get('secret'), 0]);
When passed a list ref like that, get() treats each pair of elements
as (name, args) (with 0 indicating no args) and all is well.
But when you don't have any dots in a variable, and no args,
like this:
foo
the parser "optimises" it to this:
$stash->get('foo');
Rather than
$stash->get(['foo', 0]);
And if you have this:
secret = 'C.I.A'
$secret
Then it gets optimised to this:
$stash->set(secret => 'C.I.A');
$stash->get($stash->get('secret'))
Which is the same as:
$stash->get('C.I.A')
Which the stash then parses into ['C', 0, 'I', 0, 'A', 0]
thinking you meant that dotop sequence all along because you
passed it a string and not a list ref.
So if you define C => { I => { A => [...] } } then you will
see the values coming back, just as if you typed:
[% C.I.A %]
But that's not what you want :-(
And just to add to the weirdness of it, if you add an argument
to the single variable then it works because the parser no longer
optimises it down:
$secret(1)
This becomes:
$stash->get([$stash->get('secret'), [1]]);
And the value gets returned. In this case, the (1) argument is ignored
so it makes no difference to the outcome. Other than making it work,
of course.
So yes, I guess it is a bug. But I'll probably hold off on fixing it until
TT3 given that it's something of an edge case. And you've got a workaround
(just add an argument), however counter-intuitive it might be!
Incidentally, this works OK:
badguys.${'C.I.A'}
And this will work in TT3:
badguys.'C.I.A'
I guess that means this will/should work, too:
$'C.I.A'
Cheers
A
--
McIntosh Cooey - Twelve Hundred Group LLC - http://www.1200group.com/
_______________________________________________
templates mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.template-toolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/templates
