On 10.11.2010, at 11:09, Luke Plant wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-10-31 at 16:59 -0700, SmileyChris wrote:
>> On Oct 29, 2:22 pm, Russell Keith-Magee <russ...@keith-magee.com>
>> wrote:
>>> If we can introduce the terse syntax while maintaining the old syntax
>>> (including the analogous change in blocktrans), I think it would be a
>>> worthwhile change. However, I certainly won't complain if public
>>> opinion sways the other way.
>>
>> I've done this here:
>> http://github.com/SmileyChris/django/compare/master...7817-include-with
>
> Nice work. I also find the '=' format more readable, and definitely
> appropriate for the reasons given by others. With the others fixed to be
> consistent Russell's concerns are addressed. It seems only Jannis is
> opposed to this syntax so far, and several core developers as well as
> everyone else on the thread prefer it. Are we close enough to "rough
> consensus" yet?
Not really, I'm -1 on this and gave a different proposal that doesn't get rid
of an existing paradigm and would solve the issues for me (+0).
BTW, while looking trough Chris' patch again I noticed another wart of his
proposed change regarding filters when used in the parameter assignment.
{% blocktrans with berta=anton|lower %}{{ berta }}{% endblocktrans %}
The version that works today:
{% blocktrans with anton|lower as berta %}{{ berta }}{% endblocktrans %}
The include proposed by Chris:
{% include "basic-syntax03" with first=second|lower|upper second=first|upper
%}
and the more verbose version that corresponds to how the template language
works today:
{% include "basic-syntax03" with first|lower|upper as new_first and
second|upper as new_second %}
Jannis
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to django-develop...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en.
