On 3/20/07, Matt Good <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Mar 20, 11:54 pm, "Stephen Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Now comes the fun part. We had a number of specialized templates for > > formatting certain common data in a visually pleasing way. I'm writing > > simple macros for that (as one-file plugins from WikiMacroBase). > > It sounds like you may be putting each macro in a separate .py file > like how the old-style macros were written. The new style doesn't > depend on the filename for the name of the macro so you're actually > free to define multiple macros in a single class if you prefer.
Well, the only thing I could find was http://trac.edgewall.org/ticket/4381-- and from that example, I wasn't even sure just how the heck it got the name of the macro save from the filename or some odd class-name-fu. I intended on looking up IWikiMacroProvider since the syntax on said ticket made it seem a lot cleaner... just never got around to it. :) Still doing some MediaWiki->Trac data cleanups. (And *so* turning off WIKI_CREATE for all of the users since they don't grok anything like consistency in naming schemes or that wiki names shouldn't be oddly cased sentences :P) > The first big hiccup I've noticed? I like to use keyword arguments, since > > otherwise the peers won't remember what's what, and looking over the > > pages... I can't rely upon them ever being able to type them in with the > > proper case. > > > > [[APTBuild(build=256, Revision=4587, date=03/03/2007, > > path=/release/build256)]] > > > > Notice the R. :) > > > > The question: Am I missing anything obvious(a feature, option, etc) to > make > > this not an issue? If not, then I'll probably end up making a patch to > have > > parse_args return a case-insensitive dict. > > No, parse_args just returns them in whatever case was provided. If > you need to normalize the keyword args to lower-case you can do it > like: > > args, kw = parse_args(arg_string) > kw = dict([(k.lower(), v) for k,v in kw.iteritems()]) > > In Python 2.4 and up the square-brackets in the second line are > optional. And of course if you're doing this in multiple places you > may want to define that as a function that you can reuse. I know how to do it, yes :) I just found it odd that it wasn't an issue for everyone, that's all. Perhaps my people just use macros themselves a lot more then the average joe, or are a lot less willing to pay attention to such things on the fly. Thanks. --S --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Trac Users" group. To post to this group, send email to trac-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/trac-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
