"Geir Magnusson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Your wish seems ok, maybe with some polishing... (see embedded
> > comment ) but would move velocity into a *real* scripting area.
> > Your proposal would be understandable by programmers, but find
> > little understanding by template designers.
>
> I think this is true.
Named parameters are easier to understand than position parameters.
My guess is that the largest non-programmer user group right now is html
designers.
Html uses named parameters.
Also, I think would would be better done by adding this to #macro rather
than creating #widget -- KISS
> + Does someone see the map use case and the explicit defaults hard
> to understand/explain for template designers?
Having two call patterns with different syntax is always harder than one
syntax and call pattern.
#widget( "foo":"alice" ) & #mymacro( "alice" )
vs
#mymacro( { "foo":"alice" } ) & #mymacro( "alice" )
vs
#mymacro ( "foo":"alice" ) & #mymacro( "alice" )
The Velocity motto appears to be "keep the syntax as simple as possible",
and adding named parameters to #macro works cleaner in this regard than the
map syntax.
> + Is the explicit assignment of defaults to macro parameters desireable?
I have macros where this would be very desirable.
> + How will this play together with the mentioned macro overloading (with
different parameter counts)?
My guess: If you have named parameters with defaults, you can get by without
macro overloading and variable argument counts.
It will depend what creative uses people have come up with for macros.
-Mike
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
