At 12:56 7/1/01 -0500, Jason Rosenberg wrote: >Peter, > >Now you are beginning to see. Templates do require their >own isolated context, which is local. This is because they >are sub-routines, which have their own local values on >the stack (speaking in procedural terms).
right. >You are simply running into the problem of trying to >do templates from a pure declarative model. The dependency >graph idea just isn't really buying much, when we talk >about parameterized, reusable code. a lot of people differ with that opinion, among them some of the XML mob, DB mob etc. >The <template> tag really complicates the code unnecessarily, >since now we have to be thinking about having completely >separately declared code. Code which can be part of a >template, or code which cannot. you have to think about it any-way. This just makes it explicit. >In the end, things will likely evolve such that 95% of the script >is being executed by templates, and so the business of building >a DAG representation for the non-template part is superfluous. Possibly for some cases thou not all. So what was your point ? Cheers, Pete *-----------------------------------------------------* | "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, | | and proving that there is no need to do so - almost | | everyone gets busy on the proof." | | - John Kenneth Galbraith | *-----------------------------------------------------*
