John McNally wrote:
>
> "Geir Magnusson Jr." wrote:
> >
> > This is another request for discussion and vote on the topic of a macro
> > expansion facility to Velocity. This should be a 'more complete'
> > definition of the proposal. Currently, code exists to support
> > everything mentioned in this proposal.
> >
> >
>
> Can you explain the difference between a Velocimacro and a function in
> the FreeMarker sense? They seem fairly similar to me. I was under the
> impression that functions were considered something too complex for a
> layer meant for use by designers.
To be frank, I am unfamiliar with FreeMarker. I did read what I think
are the correct docs, and they appear to be fairly similar. I assume
that with a FreeMarker function, any valid template code is allowed
within a function?
The only differences I can see are that :
1) In the present not-yet-approved implementation, VMs don't conflict
with the reference / 'variable' namespace.
2) They are accessed like the other directives :
#foo( $i )
rather than via an additional construct <set foo( i ) > ( I think this
is what you do in FreeMarker ).
I guess re the complexity issue, no, I personally don't believe that,
within limits. Because nothing but template code is used, the toolset
really isn't expanded : they can't do any more damage than they can with
cut and paste...
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dakota tribal wisdom: "when you discover you are riding a dead horse,
the best strategy is to dismount."
