Re: New syntax feedback for 4.0
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 2000
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 29325
interpreted = N
texte = At 4:47 PM -0800 2000/03/20, Grant Hulbert wrote:>Hey guys, we are entering into the decision phase for our DreamWeaver >syntax for 4.0, and I'd like to open up a small discussion to help me >decide which way to go. This information is confidential, and should >not be discussed outside this list. > >Background: WebDNA's [] syntax tends to make most GUI editors like >DreamWeaver get confused. We decided Mohammed should go to the >mountain in this case, so we are modifying WebCatalog's syntax to >match what GUI editors expect to see. > >So for 4.0, one can optionally write two different kinds of snytax in WebDNA: > >[Loop start=1&end=10] >[index] >[/Loop] > >or > >
> > > >This works well for most contexts, but there are a few exceptions >that can confuse most parsers. Specifically, ShowIf can contain >characters like > which look just like HTML to a parser: > >
3> > ^ looks a lot like followed by a 3 > >...so one solution is to force all contexts to use named/quoted parameters: > >3>I do NOT like this syntax.>..but that's really starting to look stupid. I'm not so worried >about the amount of typing involved, because the GUI editor is going >to be doing most of the work anyway, but it still looks pretty weird, >and I think it's hard to follow. > >Another solution would be to change the syntax of ShowIf itself: > >I have used something like this before and it worked well. In that case, they used . instead of _ which is a bit nicer as DOT is not a shifted character and thus easier to type. But Underscore would be OK. One thing though, please use standard abbreviations for the comparisons. In other words, use .LT. and not .LS. (or allow both) I find LS, GR, WN, etc. hard to read. And sprinkle in some .or. and .and. and .not. syntax too. >...but I don't like this one because it requires a lot more than a >simple global search and replace in a text editor to make this kind >of change to pre-existing old-style WebDNA code.Undisturbed old format code should continue to work, IMHO, but code with the new There's also a hybrid approach that would allow both a named- and >non-named syntax to be allowed: > >3> or 3> > >The first is more easily readable by people hand-tying the code, and >the second is more easily parsed by GUI editors. I'm leaning toward >that one.I do not like these. -Chuck-__________________________________________________________________________ Chuck Rice ############################################################# This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to Send administrative queries to
Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:
At 4:47 PM -0800 2000/03/20, Grant Hulbert wrote:>Hey guys, we are entering into the decision phase for our DreamWeaver >syntax for 4.0, and I'd like to open up a small discussion to help me >decide which way to go. This information is confidential, and should >not be discussed outside this list. > >Background: WebDNA's [] syntax tends to make most GUI editors like >DreamWeaver get confused. We decided Mohammed should go to the >mountain in this case, so we are modifying WebCatalog's syntax to >match what GUI editors expect to see. > >So for 4.0, one can optionally write two different kinds of snytax in WebDNA: > >[Loop start=1&end=10] >[index] >[/Loop] > >or > > > > > >This works well for most contexts, but there are a few exceptions >that can confuse most parsers. Specifically, ShowIf can contain >characters like > which look just like HTML to a parser: > >3> > ^ looks a lot like followed by a 3 > >...so one solution is to force all contexts to use named/quoted parameters: > >3>I do NOT like this syntax.>..but that's really starting to look stupid. I'm not so worried >about the amount of typing involved, because the GUI editor is going >to be doing most of the work anyway, but it still looks pretty weird, >and I think it's hard to follow. > >Another solution would be to change the syntax of ShowIf itself: > >I have used something like this before and it worked well. In that case, they used . instead of _ which is a bit nicer as DOT is not a shifted character and thus easier to type. But Underscore would be OK. One thing though, please use standard abbreviations for the comparisons. In other words, use .LT. and not .LS. (or allow both) I find LS, GR, WN, etc. hard to read. And sprinkle in some .or. and .and. and .not. syntax too. >...but I don't like this one because it requires a lot more than a >simple global search and replace in a text editor to make this kind >of change to pre-existing old-style WebDNA code.Undisturbed old format code should continue to work, IMHO, but code with the new There's also a hybrid approach that would allow both a named- and >non-named syntax to be allowed: > >3> or 3> > >The first is more easily readable by people hand-tying the code, and >the second is more easily parsed by GUI editors. I'm leaning toward >that one.I do not like these. -Chuck-__________________________________________________________________________ Chuck Rice ############################################################# This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to Send administrative queries to
Chuck Rice
DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!
Top Articles:
Talk List
The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...
Related Readings:
ThreadMem ignored? (1998)
Re:Emailer and encryption (1997)
pc (1997)
Erotic Sites (1997)
Silly Question (1997)
WebCatalog for Mac 2.0.1 Released (1997)
PIXO support (1997)
pc (1997)
Help name our technology! (1997)
Random question (1998)
Multiple security dbs (1997)
[LOOKUP] (1997)
listfiles-looking for slick solution (1997)
Help!!!! (1997)
Flash 4 Examples (2000)
SiteGuard Admin Feature ? (1997)
On a related topic (2006)
multi-paragraph fields (1997)
Emailer and encryption (1997)
[cart] clarification... (1997)