I've kept the quotes. No, TS doesn't expand values.
On Thursday 07 June 2001 12:02, Ian Bicking wrote:
> Chuck Esterbrook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But, yes, we can do without quotes. After all, $foo
> > doesn't even expand with quotes unless $foo really
> > contains them.
>
> TS doesn't --
Chuck Esterbrook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But, yes, we can do without quotes. After all, $foo doesn't even expand
> with quotes unless $foo really contains them.
TS doesn't -- I don't think, at least shouldn't -- "expand" values.
That way lies sh and m4, and those are scary.
$foo *evaluates
At 11:38 AM 6/7/2001 -0700, Tavis Rudd wrote:
>one other minor point:
>should we require the quotation marks on files?
>
> > #include raw $userHTProfile
> > #include "footer.html"
> becomes
> > #include raw $userHTProfile
> > #include footer.html
I could easily live without them. That means "raw
raw it is then. I've started changing the docs and but it'll take
a while to swap the code over.
On Thursday 07 June 2001 10:58, Chuck Esterbrook wrote:
> At 11:02 AM 6/7/2001 -0700, Tavis Rudd wrote:
> >'raw' is excellent! Same mean, but simpler.
> >
> >How about this then?
>
> I concur.
___
one other minor point:
should we require the quotation marks on files?
> #include raw $userHTProfile
> #include "footer.html"
becomes
> #include raw $userHTProfile
> #include footer.html
___
Webware-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.s
Tavis Rudd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> one other minor point:
> should we require the quotation marks on files?
Yes!
Ian
___
Webware-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webware-devel
At 12:54 PM 6/7/2001 -0500, Ian Bicking wrote:
>unparsed
Don't forget unlexed, uncompiled and unbound.
>plain text
>text/plain (from MIME)
If you're template and include are both something like XML or HTML, then
the text/plain could be somewhat confusing. A user might be tempted to say
"text
On Thursday 07 June 2001 10:54, Ian Bicking wrote:
> unparsed
> plain text
> text/plain (from MIME)
> raw
> raw text
>
> I think raw text makes the most sense to me. Plain text
> also seems like a good description.
'raw' is excellent! Same mean, but simpler.
How about this then?
#raw
some ve
At 10:52 AM 6/7/2001 -0700, Tavis Rudd wrote:
>I think people would learn it's meaning fairly fast as it's
>also used in the #verbatim directive There's good
>symmetry in that. Can you think of any easier words
>that mean the same thing?
I can live with verbatim and find it preferable to the al
Tavis Rudd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 07 June 2001 10:39, Ian Bicking wrote:
>
> > Verbatim is a hard word, and I'm not *really* clear what
> > it means. Copy confuses me, because I think of that word
> > with computers as a very active verb -- like, it does
> > something external.
On Thursday 07 June 2001 10:39, Ian Bicking wrote:
> Verbatim is a hard word, and I'm not *really* clear what
> it means. Copy confuses me, because I think of that word
> with computers as a very active verb -- like, it does
> something external. Copyfile, perhaps, or insertfile.
I think people
Chuck Esterbrook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Or insert:
> #insert "foo.text"
> All though that is a little vague and starting with "in" like "include"
> might create brainspace competition. Forget "insert".
#insert was the first thing I thought of, before reading your post. I
think it's a
On Thursday 07 June 2001 10:21, Chuck Esterbrook wrote:
> BTW your examples bring up the interesting point of
> compound word directives. I don't see any reason why we
> can't allow a space like we do with "#end if". For
> example:
> #include verbatim "foo.text"
I like this one! It makes th
At 10:18 AM 6/7/2001 -0700, Tavis Rudd wrote:
>Chuck,
>I agree with all this, but don't like the name #copy
>
>#verbatimInclude
>or
>#verbatim-include
>or
>#plainInclude
>or
>#plain-include
>
>would be better. Your thoughts?
I prefer #copy to the above.
Another choice is to have an optional argu
Chuck,
I agree with all this, but don't like the name #copy
#verbatimInclude
or
#verbatim-include
or
#plainInclude
or
#plain-include
would be better. Your thoughts?
On Thursday 07 June 2001 10:00, Chuck Esterbrook wrote:
> TS currently uses #parse and #include. The first groks
> the file, t
TS currently uses #parse and #include. The first groks the file, the second
just copies the contents with no interpretation.
I think the functionalities are good, but not the names.
Consider the terms used by other languages:
- SSI: include
- IE/HTML: @import
- Python:
16 matches
Mail list logo
