> Everyone is entitled to your opinion, and everyone else is
> entitled to
> their own, wrong opinion. Right, Dominique? ;^)
>
> Just to be contrarian (but not really), the "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" notation
> looks weird to
> me! "@{x}" is familiar enough, although I can't say why at
> the moment --
> oh, yeah, doesn't Perl have a similar construct?
Perl:
$name - scalar: a 'normal' variable (numbers/strings depends on context)
@name - array : usual array of scalars; $name[0]
%name - hash : key(string)-value(scalar) pairs; $name{key}
Maybe Perl 6 introduces some other ... who knows
Jan
>
> I've watched this discussion all the way through, and I can see the
> benefits of both approaches. FWIW, seems to me that a
> run-time definition
> of a property within the macro (<local> rears its ugly(?!)
> head again) is
> desirable. Although a straight textual substitution will be easily
> understood by folks familiar with the C/C++ pre-processor.
>
> I feel strongly both ways! :^/
>
> Ken
>
> At 10:11 2003-11-19, you wrote:
> > > From: Jose Alberto Fernandez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > From: Gus Heck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > My (non-committer) oppion coincides with Stefan here,
> with a slight
> > > > preference for @{x}
> > > > because it looks like "put the substitution AT this
> location" when I
> > > > read it to myself.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Actually if we go for reading value, the advantage of
> @{x} notation is
> > > that sounds like "AT(tribute) x" :-)
> > >
> > > I think I can live with that.
> >
> >Unlike Jose Alberto, I think it's a 'good' thing than referencing an
> >declared attribute of a <macrodef> in its body/impl
> resembles the XSLT
> >referencing of a attribute of the current XML element!
> >
> >The similarities are striking, and the syntax is well known
> and clearly
> >documented. The <macrodef> attribute *will* be an XML
> element attribute
> >when it's used actually!!!
> >
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] feels very natural, and avoids any confusion with ${x}.
> >It can be easily escaped using the double symbol people like,
> >so that {@@x} passes thru as the [EMAIL PROTECTED] literal. (After all, I
> >don't
> >think it's valid to have an XML attribute starting with an @, so
> >it's free of conflict too.)
> >
> >The point is not to resemble the existing notation for
> dereferencing Ant
> >properties, since that's what it's supposed to be distinct
> from, which is
> >why @{x} feels wrong to me (and looks ugly IMHO ;-).
> >
> >The point is to use a widely used notation for a widely
> similar purpose,
> >i.e. the XSLT notation, which as I noted above is so similar
> to the semantic
> >of what's being done.
> >
> >I'm not a committer and all, but to me [EMAIL PROTECTED] is the clear choice
> >for
> ><macrodef> attribute dereferencing. I'm sure others will disagree ;-)
> >But no one can escape getting my opinion on the matter ;-)))) --DD
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> =============================================================
> J. Kenneth Gentle (Ken) | Phone: (610) 255-0361
> Gentle Software, LLC | Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> =============================================================
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
