Baptiste wrote:
> Of course I am +1 on this because I also wanted it, I think it would
> be really useful... repeating {% with %}{% endwith %} ten times if
> needed ten times really does not respect DRY principle...
Well, strictly speaking, as long as you write each `with` only once,
it's DRY ;-)
Of course I am +1 on this because I also wanted it, I think it would
be really useful... repeating {% with %}{% endwith %} ten times if
needed ten times really does not respect DRY principle...
On 2 avr, 16:53, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi guys!
>
> I want to be able to use
Hi Smiley!
> I'm not sure if this was an official design decision. As the ticket
> writer, I suggested that this was a solution.
> The tag could easily be extended to do that (or comma separated if
> that looks better).
Ok! Anyway, the tag works the same way as before to an user.
About the comma
On Apr 3, 4:48 am, "Waylan Limberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If I recall correstly that was a design decision as you can always nest
> with tags:
I'm not sure if this was an official design decision. As the ticket
writer, I suggested that this was a solution.
The tag could easily be extended
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 10:53:39 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi guys!
>
> I want to be able to use with as:
>
> {% with some.complex.variable as var and some.another.variable as
> other %}
> {{ var }}
> {{ other }}
> {% endwith %}
>
> I saw some discussion about this som
Hi guys!
I want to be able to use with as:
{% with some.complex.variable as var and some.another.variable as
other %}
{{ var }}
{{ other }}
{% endwith %}
I saw some discussion about this sometime ago but I could not find the
thread. Now it is not possible to use the "and" as I want, is this a
d
