Re: Scoping rules in WebDNA 4.0
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 2000
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 29355
interpreted = N
texte = At 4:50 PM -1000 2000/03/20, Kenneth Grome wrote:> >New syntax: >>[math]x=12[/math] >>[search db=blah] >> [founditems] >> [GetMathVar name=x] <-- retrieves math variable from explicit math context >> [GetFoundItemsVar name=x] <-- retrieves database field x from >>enclosing [search] >> [/founditems] >>[/search] >> >>So every context which has tag values within it would need a >>corresponding Get function, uniquely named, so that one could get >>its values. And the syntax would *require* you to explicitly name >>the context so you could get at the value (because it's this whole >>lazy syntax that seems to mess people up). > >Sorry to be so blunt, but this would suck to have to do this! > >A long time ago I made a suggestion for a [variables] tag that would work like the [formvariables] context but on text and math variables as well as formvariables, and in a much simpler manner ... > >If a simple [variables] tag were developed to list the TYPES and names and values of all the variables in existence at that point on the page, it would be a great debugging tool. If anything, we need a great debugging tool instead of all-new syntax that's harder to use that the existing syntax ... > >Why not create a [variables] tag and give it some kind of preference that we can turn on and off on a folder-by-folder basis? If you do this, we can leave [variables] tags in our templates and never have to worry about them displaying a list of variable values until we actually need them. Then we simply turn the variables preference on for that folder, and all our [variables] tags display every variable in that position on the page. And when we finish debugging the problem, we turn the variables preference off so those tags no longer display anything. > >:)I like the current lazy tag format, but I also really like Ken's idea of a
,,,
Context. This would be very cool! The index does not make a lot of sense, but I would include it for consistency.An additional context called
anything that would be stored in a variable of type MACRO would also be cool! It would function much like an include, except the source would be a macro variable, not a file. Then I could build one include file with a bunch of macro definitions and use them at will. -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 4:50 PM -1000 2000/03/20, Kenneth Grome wrote:> >New syntax: >>[math]x=12[/math] >>[search db=blah] >> [founditems] >> [GetMathVar name=x] <-- retrieves math variable from explicit math context >> [GetFoundItemsVar name=x] <-- retrieves database field x from >>enclosing [search] >> [/founditems] >>[/search] >> >>So every context which has tag values within it would need a >>corresponding Get function, uniquely named, so that one could get >>its values. And the syntax would *require* you to explicitly name >>the context so you could get at the value (because it's this whole >>lazy syntax that seems to mess people up). > >Sorry to be so blunt, but this would suck to have to do this! > >A long time ago I made a suggestion for a [variables] tag that would work like the [formvariables] context but on text and math variables as well as formvariables, and in a much simpler manner ... > >If a simple [variables] tag were developed to list the TYPES and names and values of all the variables in existence at that point on the page, it would be a great debugging tool. If anything, we need a great debugging tool instead of all-new syntax that's harder to use that the existing syntax ... > >Why not create a [variables] tag and give it some kind of preference that we can turn on and off on a folder-by-folder basis? If you do this, we can leave [variables] tags in our templates and never have to worry about them displaying a list of variable values until we actually need them. Then we simply turn the variables preference on for that folder, and all our [variables] tags display every variable in that position on the page. And when we finish debugging the problem, we turn the variables preference off so those tags no longer display anything. > >:)I like the current lazy tag format, but I also really like Ken's idea of a ,,,
Context. This would be very cool! The index does not make a lot of sense, but I would include it for consistency.An additional context called anything that would be stored in a variable of type MACRO would also be cool! It would function much like an include, except the source would be a macro variable, not a file. Then I could build one include file with a bunch of macro definitions and use them at will. -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:
Google Web Accelerator (2005)
eCommerce software pricing (1998)
forming a SKU (1999)
WebCatalog Q & A pages (1997)
Re[2]: Enhancement Request for WebCatalog-NT (1996)
(1998)
Credit Card not accepted (1998)
credit card (1997)
PC Cookie Problem? (2003)
Question About XML Style Syntax (2000)
WebStar Questions ... (2000)
Domain serial issue (2008)
Help name our technology! I found it (1997)
Generating Report Totals (1997)
Help need to figure this out today!!! Advanced Question. (2004)
Showif, Hideif reverse logic ? (1997)
color and size options (1997)
Secure Web Server (1999)
Limits (2000)
b12 cannot limit records returned and more. (1997)