Yes - but then I'd need to pass all of the args for directiveB through
the call of directiveA, wouldn't I?
For example...
#(directiveA $argForA)
$argForA
#end
#(directiveB $argForB)
$argForB
#end
If directiveA calls directiveB, Wouldn't I need to redefine directiveA
to be
#(directiveA $argForA $argForB)
$argForA
#directiveB ($argForB)
#end
?
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Dekany [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 1:55 PM
To: Velocity Users List
Subject: Re: html macro library
Friday, May 30, 2003, 6:38:52 PM, Kevin Bolton wrote:
> Hey Jonathan,
>
> Thank you for your response and I'm with you on the need for
> #directiveA(#directiveB)). It'd also be mighty handy to be able to
> overload methods. That is have methods with the same name with
> different arguments.
That should not look like that. That should be:
#directiveA()
#directiveB
#end
but the parser will not know that directiveA supports body, so it has a
corresponding #end... a trap of the VTL syntax.
--
Best regards,
Daniel Dekany
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----------------------------------------
The information contained in this message may be privileged, confidential, and
protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, or any employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or
copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and
deleting it from your computer.
Thank you. Paychex, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
