Yes, David added it.
-------------------------------------
Derek Chen-Becker<dchenbec...@gmail.com> wrote:
Is that now part of the Lift library, or is that hand-coded?
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Timothy Perrett
<timo...@getintheloop.eu>wrote:
> Im using -%> in production code and personally i think it looks fine!
> Cheers, Tim
>
> On 15 Oct 2009, at 19:12, Derek Chen-Becker wrote:
>
> Did this discussion ever lead to anything concrete? I just had to update
> part of the book that talks about this and I added a note to follow-up in
> case we need to document a change in 1.1. In particular, if people have 1.1
> code that uses the current (according to David, broken) functionality, it's
> going to be a big surprise if the attributes suddenly disappear between
> releases. Can we at least do a deprecation and log a warning if we want to
> change the behavior?
>
> Derek
>
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Naftoli Gugenheim
> <naftoli...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> What's the advantage of ->>? That it looks more like an arrow?Personally
>> I'm fine either way, but I think the important question is what most people
>> find conveys the intent. I wish I would get more responses to the question!
>> :) One the one hand ->> goes hand in hand with -> for regular binds, while
>> %> doesn't look like an arrow but it does say "attribute" in it! Maybe %-> ?
>> ->% ? %%> ?
>>
>> Not sure what happened to the formatting! How do I make sure it stays?
>> (I'm using GMail now.)
>> Here's a screenshot :)
>> <tmp.jpg>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 4:07 PM, marius d. <marius.dan...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> One small advice ... your code would probably be be read by more
>>> people if some minimal formatting is applied :) ... I can imagine you
>>> didn't do it on purpose though :)
>>>
>>> Actually I like it.
>>>
>>> Just something really unimportant and subjective: how do you feel
>>> about ->> instead of %> ? (I understood your rationale of choosing %)
>>>
>>> Br's,
>>> Marius
>>>
>>> On Aug 17, 10:02 pm, Naftoli Gugenheim <naftoli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > Hi, sorry, not sure why I didn't see your message earlier. Strange...
>>> Has
>>> > anyone written any code to address this topic in the meantime? In case
>>> not,
>>> > here's all the code I've written for such purposes; tell me what you
>>> think.
>>> >
>>> > def keepAttrs(elem: Elem) = (ns: NodeSeq) => BindHelpers.currentNode
>>> match {
>>> > case Full(inElem) => elem % inElem.attributes case other => elem }
>>> protected
>>> > class Keepable(elem: Elem) { def %% = keepAttrs(elem) } implicit def
>>> > elemToKeepable(elem: Elem): Keepable = new Keepable(elem) protected
>>> class
>>> > KeepBind(name: String) { val emptyFn: NodeSeq=>NodeSeq = _ =>
>>> NodeSeq.Empty
>>> > import scala.xml.{Node, Text} import net.liftweb.util.Bindable def
>>> %>(in:
>>> > Elem) = FuncBindParam(name, keepAttrs(in)) def %>(in: Box[Elem]) =
>>> > FuncBindParam(name, in.map(keepAttrs) openOr emptyFn) def %>(in:
>>> > Option[Elem]) = FuncBindParam(name, in.map(keepAttrs) getOrElse
>>> emptyFn) }
>>> > implicit def strToKeepAssoc(name: String): KeepBind = new
>>> KeepBind(name)
>>> >
>>> > keepAttrs could actually be implemented shorter:
>>> >
>>> > elem currentNode.map(_.attributes).openOr(scala.xml.Null))
>>> >
>>> > etc.
>>> >
>>> > On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 4:50 PM, marius d. <marius.dan...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > IMHO:
>>> >
>>> > > The problem with
>>> >
>>> > > "name" some_new_operator_beside_-> expr
>>> >
>>> > > would lead to a handful of overloading as -> in SuperArrowAssoc.
>>> Looks
>>> > > a little messy to me.
>>> >
>>> > > Looks like we already have a way to do this:
>>> >
>>> > > import Helpers._
>>> >
>>> > > "name" -> {node: NodeSeq => mixinAttributes(expr
>>> _that_yields_an_Elem)
>>> > > (node)}
>>> >
>>> > > Would that be too ... boilerplate for you?
>>> >
>>> > > Br's,
>>> > > Marius
>>> >
>>> > > On Aug 14, 11:18 pm, Naftoli Gugenheim <naftoli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > > > As I mentioned, I wrote some code that allows you to use %> instead
>>> of ->
>>> > > to preserve the attributes. (I chose it because the % symbol is used
>>> to
>>> > > merge attributes to an Elem.) The right side can be an Elem or a
>>> Box/Option
>>> > > of an Elem.
>>> > > > What do people think of this syntax?
>>> > > > P.S. Another way is to append ".%%" to an Elem making it into a
>>> NodeSeq
>>> > > function.
>>> >
>>> > > > -------------------------------------
>>> >
>>> > > > marius d.<marius.dan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > > The book exposes current functionality for Lift 1.0. If
>>> functionality
>>> > > > X was not intended to be there is a different story, but regardless
>>> it
>>> > > > is there and the way I see it it is OK to be in the book.
>>> >
>>> > > > Personally I don't see it as defect as preserving attributes (to
>>> the
>>> > > > top level resulting NodeSeq) may be quite handy in certain
>>> situations
>>> > > > even that contradicts David's design intent. But this is just a
>>> > > > personal opinion. After David removes this, a helper to copy
>>> > > > attributes is needed IMO. So Naftoli if you want to do this please
>>> go
>>> > > > ahead ... or if you don't want it I'll do it.
>>> >
>>> > > > Br's,
>>> > > > Marius
>>> >
>>> > > > On Aug 14, 7:43 pm, Naftoli Gugenheim <naftoli...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > > > The book seems to think it's intentional!
>>> > > > > But why can't unprefixed nodes by preserved automatically? Maybe
>>> there
>>> > > could be a setting?
>>> > > > > Thanks.
>>> >
>>> > > > > -------------------------------------
>>> >
>>> > > > > David Pollak<feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 9:23 AM, Naftoli Gugenheim <
>>> > > naftoli...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > > > > Exactly!
>>> >
>>> > > > > > -------------------------------------
>>> > > > > > Derek Chen-Becker<dchenbec...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > > > > Basically, you're asking why a bind tag like
>>> >
>>> > > > > > <ledger:entry id="foo" class="bar" />
>>> >
>>> > > > > > doesn't preserve the id and class attrs when it binds, but
>>> >
>>> > > > > > <ledger:entry ledger:id="foo" ledger:class="bar" />
>>> >
>>> > > > > > does?
>>> >
>>> > > > > If bind("ledger", <ledger:entry ledger:id="foo"
>>> ledger:class="bar" />,
>>> > > > > "entry" -> <foo/>)
>>> > > > > results in anything other than <foo/> it's a defect.
>>> >
>>> > > > > Wow... looks like it does... it's a defect and I'll fix it.
>>> >
>>> > > > > > Derek
>>> >
>>> > > > > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Naftoli Gugenheim <
>>> > > naftoli...@gmail.com
>>> > > > > > >wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > > > > > Of course you can access it from the snippet. But if you want
>>> it to
>>> > > be
>>> > > > > > > output automatically, then you prefix it with whatever the
>>> node's
>>> > > prefix
>>> > > > > > is.
>>> > > > > > > In other words, by default it's not outputted.
>>> >
>>> > > > > > > -------------------------------------
>>> > > > > > > David Pollak<feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 9:06 PM, Naftoli Gugenheim <
>>> > > naftoli...@gmail.com
>>> > > > > > > >wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > > > > > > What I would like to do:
>>> > > > > > > > <label for="name">Name</label> <person:name I'd="name"
>>> > > size="10"
>>> > > > > > > > class="special" style="vertical-align: top" maxlength="5"
>>> > > tabindex="1"
>>> > > > > > />
>>> > > > > > > > Okay, just a little contrived...
>>> > > > > > > > My understanding is you can do this by prefixing the
>>> attribute
>>> > > with
>>> > > > > > > > "lift:"; otherwise it will not be output but is available
>>> to the
>>> > > > > > snippet
>>> > > > > > > > code, i.e., without the prefix you are making an attribute
>>> > > available to
>>> > > > > > > the
>>> > > > > > > > snippet but that's it.
>>> >
>>> > > > > > > I'm sorry, but I'm still clueless about what you're talking
>>> about.
>>> >
>>> > > > > > > Do you want to bind to <person:name/> and add the attributes
>>> in the
>>> > > > > > > <person:name /> element to the resulting element?
>>> >
>>> > > > > > > The lift prefix has nothing to do with binding. Binding is
>>> done in
>>> > > > > > > net.liftweb.util and is purely a way of substituting dynamic
>>> XML
>>> > > into
>>> > > > > > well
>>> > > > > > > defined points in a NodeSeq.
>>> >
>>> > > > > > > So... if you want to include the attributes of an Elem that
>>> you are
>>> > > > > > > replacing during a bind operation, you have access to the
>>> current
>>> > > node
>>> > > > > > via
>>> > > > > > > Helpers.currentNode: Box[Elem] and you can get the
>>> attributes:
>>> > > > > > > currentNode.map(_.attributes) openOr Null
>>> >
>>> > > > > > > > I'm getting this from Exploring Lift page 115.
>>> >
>>> > > > > > > > -------------------------------------
>>> > > > > > > > David Pollak<feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 7:24 PM, Naftoli Gugenheim <
>>> > > > > > naftoli...@gmail.com
>>> > > > > > > > >wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > > > > > > > Why was the decision made, if I understand correctly,
>>> that
>>> > > normal
>>> > > > > > > > > attributes are not preserved in a bound node, and are are
>>> only
>>> > > > > > > available
>>> > > > > > > > for
>>> > > > > > > > > the snippet's usage, and if you want the attribute to be
>>> > > "sticky" you
>>> > > > > > > > have
>>> > > > > > > > > to prefix it with "lift:"? Wouldn't it be better the
>>> other way?
>>> >
>>> > > > > > > > I don't understand your question. Are you talking about
>>> > > Helpers.bind()
>>> > > > > > > or
>>> > > > > > > > are you talking about snippet dispatching?
>>> >
>>> > > > > > > > Can you please provide an example of what happens now and
>>> what
>>> > > you
>>> > > > > > would
>>> > > > > > > > expect to happen?
>>> >
>>> > > > > > > > > One of lift's design goals is to help keep the static
>>> html in
>>> > > the
>>> > > > > > view
>>> > > > > > > > and
>>> > > > > > > > > the logic in the code, and to provide a templating system
>>> that
>>> > > > > > doesn't
>>> > > > > > > > > interfere with visual web designers. It seems to me that
>>> it
>>> > > would
>>> > > > > > > further
>>> > > > > > > > > this goal if html attributes could be properly specified
>>> in the
>>> > > view
>>> > > > > > > > html.
>>> >
>>> > > > > > > > --
>>> > > > > > > > Lift, the simply functional web frameworkhttp://
>>> liftweb.net
>>> > > > > > > > Beginning Scalahttp://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890
>>> > > > > > > > Follow me:http://twitter.com/dpp
>>> > > > > > > > Git some:http://github.com/dpp
>>> >
>>> > > > > > > --
>>> > > > > > > Lift, the simply functional web frameworkhttp://liftweb.net
>>> > > > > > > Beginning Scalahttp://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890
>>> > > > > > > Follow me:http://twitter.com/dpp
>>> > > > > > > Git some:http://github.com/dpp
>>> >
>>> > > > > --
>>> > > > > Lift, the simply functional web frameworkhttp://liftweb.net
>>> > > > > Beginning Scalahttp://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890
>>> > > > > Follow me:http://twitter.com/dpp
>>> > > > > Git some:http://github.com/dpp
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Lift" group.
To post to this group, send email to liftweb@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
