On Mon, 4 Dec 2000, Tino Wildenhain wrote:
> Hi there,
> finally I want to release my patch for the in-tag. I hope
> it finds its way into the source-tree.
> I was sick writing such ugly constructs as _[_['sequence-item']]
> and so on, so I patched DT_In.py and DT_InSV.py
> (in lib/python/DocumentTemplate) to use sequence_item as well.
> All hypenation variables have now a second representation with
> underscores instead of hypenation. I hope, some time we can
> drop these hypenation variables.
Or drop DTML entirely.
> The second problem is if you put one in-tag into another.
> You have to use <dtml-let> oder REQUEST.set() with variables
> of the outher in-tag to be able to reference them in the inner
> loop. The code becomes very ugly this way. So my idea was to
> give the in-tag an optional argument, called "prefix" to
> prefix all the sequence-variables with a custom identifier.
> So you can write:
> <dtml-in some_sequence prefix="outer_">
> <dtml-in some_other_sequence>
> <dtml-var outer_sequence_item>:<dtml-var sequence_item>
> </dtml-in the inner sequence>
> </dtml-in the outer sequence>
> What do you think about this?
It's cool. Your patches are big and therefore, naturally, are a bit
worrisome to us in terms of checking them into the core. Do you have a
set of test DTML scripts that verify your patch? Say, a set of scripts
that verifies backwards compatibity, and a set of scripts that verifies
the new functionality? I would suggest even investigating "ZUnit" and
creating DTML unit tests. Then we would *really* love you. ;)
Zope maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -