I would suggest also adding a way to exclude all context except items specified with the with syntax. (nocontext keyword or something like that).
Because sometimes I have certainly named items in my context which can also be used in the included template but I don't want there. Sure you can overwrite them one by one, but the faster and cleaner way would be to exclude the whole context. On Oct 29, 3:22 am, Russell Keith-Magee <russ...@keith-magee.com> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 3:46 PM, SmileyChris <smileych...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Oct 27, 5:35 am, Łukasz Rekucki <lreku...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I would like to bring this up again, because this is something that > >> would really improve readability of my templates. I'm mainly > >> interested in ticket #7817 (the include tag changes), but extending > >> "with" tag (ticket 9456) would keep things consistent. > > > Here's a link to the ticket for the lazier ones among us: > >http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/7817 > > > The main decision which needs to be made is one of syntax. > > > The current proposal uses: > > {% include "name_snippet.html" with name="Joe" greeting="Hello" %} > > but this introduces an inconsistency with the {% with %} tag. > > > Consistency would be nice, but I think this starts to look a bit > > confusing, static tokens outnumbering actual functional ones: > > {% include "name_snippet.html" with name as "Joe" and greeting as > > "Hello" %} > > > My proposal is that the current {% with name as "Joe" %} format > > becomes the legacy format, and that the new format becomes (also > > allowing for multiple arguments): > > {% with name="Joe" greeting="Hello" %} > > > Other tags which currently use the "as" token are: cycle, regroup and > > url. These all introduce a new variable into the current context, > > which does differ slightly from how {% with %} alters a variable in a > > contained scope. So my secondary (perhaps somewhat feeble) argument is > > that this actually helps to keep the "as" token's behaviour more > > consistent. :) > > > Thoughts? > > Repeating what I said to Chris in IRC for the benefit of posterity: > > I don't have any strong preference either way, but whatever style we > pick, we need to be consistent. > > I can certainly appreciate the clarity and terseness of the "foo=bar > pork=ham" syntax. My only concern would be whether it is too > "programmery" for the intended audience of the template language. We > have existing uses of the 'x=y' syntax -- such as in the {% url %} > tag, so I don't think this should be a major concern. > > As David points out, the fact that {% blocktrans %} already does 'with > X as Y and A as B' would seem to set a precedent for the verbose > syntax. This verbose syntax is also syntactically consistent with what > the {% with %} tag already does, so there's no need to introduce a > 'legacy' format. > > I could swing either way on this. If we were starting with a clean > slate, I'd prefer the terse syntax, and I think Chris provides a > reasonable argument for how the usage of 'as' can be explained > conceptually. However, the legacy issue and the precendent set by {% > blocktrans %} provides a compelling argument to use the more verbose > syntax. > > If we can introduce the terse syntax while maintaining the old syntax > (including the analogous change in blocktrans), I think it would be a > worthwhile change. However, I certainly won't complain if public > opinion sways the other way. > > Yours, > Russ Magee %-) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-develop...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en.
