Re: Re[3]: Problem with new formvariables

This WebDNA talk-list message is from

2000


It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 31211
interpreted = N
texte = > My suggestion this morning for compatibility () is a > reasonable accomodation for those people who do not want to redo the _logic_ > of > their templates. It's not redoing the logic, it's about redoing the whole stuff!!!Like a form template which uses an include for the form itself, a section where it detects errors, and show the same include again if there is a mistake.And many other things like that.The question is: do we want to get rid of this great feature???The answer is: NO.############################################################# 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:

    
  1. Re[3]: Re[3]: Problem with new formvariables (jpeacock@univpress.com 2000)
  2. Re[2]: Re[3]: Problem with new formvariables (jpeacock@univpress.com 2000)
  3. Re[2]: Re[3]: Problem with new formvariables (jpeacock@univpress.com 2000)
  4. Re: Re[2]: Re[3]: Problem with new formvariables (Jesse Proudman 2000)
  5. Re: Re[3]: Problem with new formvariables (Mike Davis 2000)
  6. Re: Re[3]: Problem with new formvariables (Jesse Proudman 2000)
  7. Re: Re[3]: Problem with new formvariables (Nicolas Verhaeghe 2000)
  8. Re: Re[3]: Problem with new formvariables (Jesse Proudman 2000)
  9. Re: Re[3]: Problem with new formvariables (Nicolas Verhaeghe 2000)
  10. Re[3]: Problem with new formvariables (jpeacock@univpress.com 2000)
> My suggestion this morning for compatibility () is a > reasonable accomodation for those people who do not want to redo the _logic_ > of > their templates. It's not redoing the logic, it's about redoing the whole stuff!!!Like a form template which uses an include for the form itself, a section where it detects errors, and show the same include again if there is a mistake.And many other things like that.The question is: do we want to get rid of this great feature???The answer is: NO.############################################################# 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 Nicolas Verhaeghe

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:

Smart caching problems with 2.1b3? (1997) Shopping Cart w/Multiple Databases (1998) Odd [math] behavior (2003) WebCatalog plugin, FireSite and PIXO (2000) Bug in WebCat, (2000) 2.1 bugs left over from beta cycle (1998) attachment (2000) listword db bolding {correction} (2002) [WebDNA] Date weirdness (2014) contextual shownext (1998) OT: Where to turn (2003) difference between v.6 and v.7, WAS: [WebDNA] v7 thisurl has different behavour (2012) hmmm (2006) unable to launch acgi in WebCat (1997) Generating Report Totals (1997) Execute Applescript (1997) upgrade problems (2004) Shipping charges depending on tax rate? (1997) Setting Cart value (2000) Problems with [Applescript] (1997)