Saturday, November 24, 2018, 9:25:46 PM, Denis Bredelet wrote: > Hi Daniel, > >> Le 24 nov. 2018 à 20:11, Daniel Dekany <ddek...@apache.org> a écrit : >> >> Friday, November 23, 2018, 2:54:05 PM, Denis Bredelet wrote: >> >>> Hi Daniel, >>> >>> Note this discussion: >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FREEMARKER-107 >>> >>> That looks like func.apply() in Javascript right? >>> https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Operators/Spread_syntax >> >> func.apply() gives identical functionality, but no syntax to make it >> succinct. Like consider (assuming the syntax is **kwargs, like in Python) >> >> <#assign commonParams = { 'style': 'foo', 'align': 'left' }> >> ... >> <@my.fancyInput type='text' size=10 **commonParams /> >> >> With function.apply-style it's something like: >> >> <@my?fancyInput?apply({ 'type': 'text', 'size': 10 } + commonParams) /> >> >> So that does the same without new syntax (it only adds a new built-in, >> "apply"), but is more verbose, and it changes the look-and-feel of the >> call a lot, just because you happen to need some dynamically added >> parameters there. > > The extra parameters don’t need to be made into a map. You could just use > this syntax: > > <@my.fancyInput?apply(commonParams) type='text' size=10 />
Good point! Although then that's some form of currying, not "apply", as the directive is not invoked by the built-in. But it's not normal currying either, as we don't specifying the parameters directly. I wonder what the built-in name should be. Maybe "spread_args": <@my.fancyInput?spread_args(commonParams) type='text' size=10 /> Still not as nice as the specialized syntax, but certainly a better compromise than adding new syntax. >>> -- Denis. >>> >>> Another interesting and long missing feature. The question is what the >>> syntax should be, especially we need it both for by-position and >>> by-name parameter passing. >>> >> >> -- >> Thanks, >> Daniel Dekany >> > > -- Thanks, Daniel Dekany
