On Jan 10, 2008 10:33 AM, David King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > <%@ index(Album, Songs, ShowSongs) %> > > album: <% Album %><br/> > > <et:if "ShowSongs"> > > songs:<br/> > > <et:map "S <- Songs"> > > song: <% S %><br/> > > </et:map> > > </et:if> > > Yuck. If you're needing to do that, why not just pass Songs as an > empty iolist, and have it be its own component?
Doing this would require even more coding, and it would be less readable because the template logic would be spread across different files. Also, components are overkill because I'm creating pure view logic and I don't need controllers. > > Isn't the point of having a component system to be able to do this is > a real language (Erlang) instead of some underpowered sub-language? As > someone whose used Struts 2, which uses templates like this one, I can > tell you that it's going down a bad path. It's not really about substituting Erlang for a lesser language. The main problem with ErlTL is that it essentially has 2 modes: Erlang mode and static data mode. You can go from static data mode to Erlang mode using the <% %> notation, but you can't go from Erlang mode to static data mode in the same function -- you have to declare a new function and call it from within the <% %> block. I think it's inconvenient in this example to create a new function just to write "song: <% S %><br/>". > > > > > > > > If you are at improving ErlTL I would like to see some whitespace > > handling. As a designer I have a fetish for well looking html sources > > and whats spit out right now doesn´t make me cheer. > > > > On 10 Jan., 09:42, "Yariv Sadan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> I've seen a few ErlTL enhancement proposals and I'd like to bring > >> them > >> all together and add some of my ideas to the mix so hopefully we can > >> end up with an improved ErlTL. I think the current ErlTL is a good > >> start but after using it for a while I saw some areas where it can > >> use > >> some refinement. Specifically, I think ErlTL could use new syntax for > >> the following expressions: if, case, and map. Below is an example > >> showing the use of the current and proposed syntax (for 'if' and > >> 'map'): > >> > >> current: > >> > >> <%@ index(Album, Songs, ShowSongs) %> > >> album: <% Album %><br/> > >> <% if ShowSongs -> > >> songs(S); > >> true -> > >> [] > >> end %> > >> > >> <%@ songs(Songs) %> > >> songs: <br/> > >> <% [song(S) || S <- Songs] %> > >> > >> <%@ song(Song) %> > >> song: <% Song %><br/> > >> > >> Improved: > >> > >> <%@ index(Album, Songs, ShowSongs) %> > >> album: <% Album %><br/> > >> <et:if expr="ShowSongs"> > >> songs:<br/> > >> <et:map expr="S <- Songs"> > >> song: <% S %><br/> > >> </et:map> > >> </et:if> > >> > >> In more detaul, the new syntax would be: > >> > >> if: > >> > >> <et:if expr="Expr"> > >> <et:elseif expr="Expr"> (optional) > >> <et:else> (optional) > >> </et:if> > >> > >> case: > >> > >> <et:switch expr="Expr"> > >> <et:case expr="Expr"> > >> stuff... > >> </et:case> > >> <et:case expr="Expr"> > >> stuf.. > >> </et:case> > >> <et:default> (optional) > >> stuff... > >> </et:default> > >> </et:switch> > >> > >> map: > >> > >> <et:map expr="Elem <- List, Elem =/= foo">stuff <% Elem %></et:map> > >> > >> This syntax is pretty self explanatory. All three constructs would be > >> translated to their Erlang equivalents by the ErlTL parser. > >> > >> I think this is a step in the right direction, but I'm not sure that > >> this is the ideal syntax so I'll be happy to hear some other > >> suggestions. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Yariv > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "erlyweb" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/erlyweb?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
