Hans Zaunere wrote:
Mine does - they aren't "global" but scoped only for that template. When an
object is pushed in, it's adapted/wrapped with an object that is designed
specifically for output in whatever type of template I'm dealing with.
That could work well, but I do have some fear that a person who's
familliar with the framework wouldn't get into the html escaping habit
when they write some script that depends on it. I also have times that
I do string manipulation in a template (or use a function that does
string manipulation), and in those cases, getting stuff escaped out of
the data layer would be a distraction.
I often find myself developing tiny things that don't fit entirely
into a framework and it's nice to have conventions that make it easier
to do the right thing with or without a framework.
few functions that behave differently if serving a web page or run from
the command line.
Ditto - PHP on nails, I like that...
"Nails" is a library, not a framework. Every language makes
programmers prone to certain mistakes; goal #1 of nails is to provide
simple answers to the simple problems that bug PHP programmers day in
and day out. For instance, there are G() and P() functions to get GET
and POST variables that undo magic_quotes_gpc if it's turned on.
On top of that I've got a few "framework" stacks that I can put on
for particular sorts of work... However, nails improves the
readability and reliability of even the simplest scripts, so long as it
doesn't run into a namespace conflict.
_______________________________________________
New York PHP User Group Community Talk Mailing List
http://lists.nyphp.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
http://www.nyphp.org/show_participation.php
