Hi,
I was wondering if I could get some feedback on this ticket. It was
recently briefly discussed here:
http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers/browse_thread/thread/fb8a4a0eb4e1d35e.
It has a patch with tests and probably not-so-good docs, but still
needs a decision.
I'll gladly reviews
2010/6/30 Łukasz Rekucki :
> Hi,
>
> I was wondering if I could get some feedback on this ticket. It was
> recently briefly discussed here:
> http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers/browse_thread/thread/fb8a4a0eb4e1d35e.
> It has a patch with tests and probably not-so-good docs, but still
On Oct 27, 5:35 am, Łukasz Rekucki 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 consiste
> 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 ac
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 3:46 PM, SmileyChris wrote:
> On Oct 27, 5:35 am, Łukasz Rekucki 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 exten
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 overwr
On 27.10.2010, at 09:46, SmileyChris wrote:
> On Oct 27, 5:35 am, Łukasz Rekucki 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
>>
Hi Jannis,
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Jannis Leidel wrote:
> On 27.10.2010, at 09:46, SmileyChris wrote:
>
>> On Oct 27, 5:35 am, Łukasz Rekucki wrote:
>>> I would like to bring this up again, because this is something that
>>> would really improve readability of my templates. I'm mainly
>>
On 03.11.2010, at 12:01, burc...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi Jannis,
>
> On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Jannis Leidel wrote:
>> On 27.10.2010, at 09:46, SmileyChris wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 27, 5:35 am, Łukasz Rekucki wrote:
I would like to bring this up again, because this is something that
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Jannis Leidel wrote:
> On 03.11.2010, at 12:01, burc...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Hi Jannis,
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Jannis Leidel wrote:
>>> On 27.10.2010, at 09:46, SmileyChris wrote:
>>>
On Oct 27, 5:35 am, Łukasz Rekucki wrote:
> I would lik
On 3 November 2010 10:03, Jannis Leidel wrote:
> On 27.10.2010, at 09:46, SmileyChris wrote:
>
>> On Oct 27, 5:35 am, Łukasz Rekucki 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 ti
+1 for {% include "foo.html" x=1 y=2 %}
This just seems more natural. My designer agreed based on the {% url
%} tags.
--
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.
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 5:37 AM, silent1mezzo wrote:
> +1 for {% include "foo.html" x=1 y=2 %}
>
> This just seems more natural. My designer agreed based on the {% url
> %} tags.
>
+1 for using the = syntax here. My reasons have been mentioned above,
but to recap:
* and/as gets too verbose and d
In a fit of coincidental timing, I was just being frustrated by this
very issue with inclusion tags today. I'm +1 on supporting kwargs with
"=". It is in fact *more* familiar to someone who works with HTML to
be able to assign attributes in arbitrary order, for example:
http://example.com"; class=
On Sun, 2010-10-31 at 16:59 -0700, SmileyChris wrote:
> On Oct 29, 2:22 pm, Russell Keith-Magee
> wrote:
> > 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
On 10.11.2010, at 09:20, Gabriel Hurley wrote:
> In a fit of coincidental timing, I was just being frustrated by this
> very issue with inclusion tags today. I'm +1 on supporting kwargs with
> "=". It is in fact *more* familiar to someone who works with HTML to
> be able to assign attributes in ar
On 10.11.2010, at 11:09, Luke Plant wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-10-31 at 16:59 -0700, SmileyChris wrote:
>> On Oct 29, 2:22 pm, Russell Keith-Magee
>> wrote:
>>> If we can introduce the terse syntax while maintaining the old syntax
>>> (including the analogous change in blocktrans), I think it would b
I apologize for the unintentional insult. In retrospect "silly" was a
poor choice of words, and certainly not directed at you specifically,
Jannis. Your opinion is plenty valid, even if we disagree.
The real crux of my argument is this: Django's philosophy of keeping
programming concerns out of te
On Wed, 2010-11-10 at 11:34 +0100, Jannis Leidel wrote:
> Not really, I'm -1 on this and gave a different proposal that doesn't
> get rid of an existing paradigm and would solve the issues for me
> (+0).
OK, there was no further progress after that, and it would be nice to
find some way to move a
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 11:04 PM, Luke Plant wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-11-10 at 11:34 +0100, Jannis Leidel wrote:
>
>> Not really, I'm -1 on this and gave a different proposal that doesn't
>> get rid of an existing paradigm and would solve the issues for me
>> (+0).
>
> OK, there was no further progre
On 18.11.2010, at 16:04, Luke Plant wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-11-10 at 11:34 +0100, Jannis Leidel wrote:
>
>> Not really, I'm -1 on this and gave a different proposal that doesn't
>> get rid of an existing paradigm and would solve the issues for me
>> (+0).
>
> OK, there was no further progress afte
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> However, given the Unless Jannis is willing to downgrade his -1 to a
> -0, I think a BDFL judgement is called for here.
Let's go with {% with a=foo b=bar %}.
Jacob
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Googl
--- On Tue, 11/30/10, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
From: Jacob Kaplan-Moss
Subject: Re: Ticket #7817: Extending "with" and "include" tags.
To: django-developers@googlegroups.com
Date: Tuesday, November 30, 2010, 10:38 AM
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Russell Keith-Mag
On 30 November 2010 16:38, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Russell Keith-Magee
> wrote:
>> However, given the Unless Jannis is willing to downgrade his -1 to a
>> -0, I think a BDFL judgement is called for here.
>
> Let's go with {% with a=foo b=bar %}.
Does this mean
2010/12/3 Łukasz Rekucki :
> On 30 November 2010 16:38, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Russell Keith-Magee
>> wrote:
>>> However, given the Unless Jannis is willing to downgrade his -1 to a
>>> -0, I think a BDFL judgement is called for here.
>>
>> Let's go with {% w
25 matches
Mail list logo
