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 - 
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )

Reply via email to