The whole problem with all of this is that you are going down the discussion
path of inventing a programming language...ie: what JEXL is trying to do by
implementing the spec of a programming language.
All of what you want to do can already be done in Java and pushed into the
context. No need to enable it in Velocity.
-jon
on 2002/8/31 5:43 AM, "Geir Magnusson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/30/02 8:47 PM, "Daniel Rall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Daniel Rall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> "Juozas Baliuka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
>>>> $myMap[ "key" ]
>>>> $myMap[ $var ]
>>>
>>> This array index syntax is not supported, as the $myMap object is not
>>> an Array object.
>>
>> Being very familiar with Perl and Python, I realize that other
>> languages do support this sort of syntax for hash lookups. As
>> Velocity is quite Java-centric and has so far explicitly avoided
>> anything resembling Perl, I wouldn't really be in favor of adding
>> anything like that, either.
>
> This is supported in Jexl, as I was thinking of proposing it here. ECMA
> script seems to require the equivalence of
>
>
> a.b and a[b]
>
>
> which to me is mind-bendingly weird as I see structural semantics behind "."
> and "[]" You can do things like
>
> foo.1
>
> Where foo is an array... I have to have it in Jexl for compliance with
> JSTL's EL (not that Jexl is 100% compliant yet...)...
>
> Anyway, I can make a good argument (to myself anyway) that this fits with
> the notion of 'introspective polymorphism', the idea that class doesn't
> matter when you say
>
> $foo.bar
>
> to be able to be calling either getBar() or get("bar") and be able to
> switch the object in the context freely.
>
> This . == [] would take that one step further.
>
> However, I keep coming back to wondering if we can avoid adding [] and still
> have the functionality (less syntax is more...), but then we get to things
> like
>
> $foo.$bar
>
> (cue Jon : "This isn't Perl") to have the same functionality as
>
> $foo[$bar]
>
>
> I actually wouldn't personally mind an array accessor, as the problem of
> accessing out of bounds, which we already have with array lists :
>
>
> #set($foo = [1,2,3,4])
>
> $foo.get(123)
>
>
> wouldn't be a new thing.
>
> Off to coffee..
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
