Re: [SMARTY-DEV] syntax error: expecting '=' after attribute name

of course comments are not the right way the switch parts of the template on and of. use {if 0} or the like. anyway: if you don't want to do anything useful, but slurp the attributes use a compiler-function. compiler-funtions get the tag_args passed literally, smarty doesn't check for correct name=value syntax before. On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 09:03:23AM -0000, Mark Rogers wrote: > Boots wrote: > > First, under this scheme, "include" should now be an attribute of xx, > > but that is NOT what is suggested here. So it looks like a somewhat > > shady feature is proposed only so that it can then be used to hack > > another feature -- ugh. > > I guess it does look that way, but I've come across this before, with more > "legitimate" uses, but this was the first time (albeit an ugly hack) where I > couldn't easily work around it. > > > FWIW, the correct way to comment in Smarty is of course to use the > > built-in comment construct {* ... *}. On the other hand, you may object > > because you cannot nest comments. Do the same thing you'd have to do in > > PHP to get around that: > > Actually, it's not the nested comments which are the problem, more the lack > of end-of-line comments in templates (not that I'd argue for that to be > added). I found it useful during development be able to temporarily switch > off individual smarty elements quickly and simply; sticking xx at the start > of the element achieved (or would have achieved :-) precisely that. > > > As a bonus, code need only be searched for occurences of the otherwise > > unused {if 0} to find the locations of those "temporary" patches. > > Likewise, searching for "{xx" is trivial. > > > > > But also consider situations where > > > > {checkbox name="test" value="testval" checked} > > > > is more readable than > > > > {checkbox name="test" value="testval" checked=1} > > > > That's sort-of specious because actually, it isn't easier at all, > > perhaps even harder. "Easier" here isn't just about using less > > characters--it is about imparting unambigous meaning concisely, and > > IMHO, the first example fails that test. > > That depends on your target audience: > <input type=checkbox name="test" value="testval" checked> > .. would be more familiar to most HTML coders (although I take Monte's point > about XHTML). > > I also find that options like "enabled" or "disabled" are preferable to > "enabled=1" or "enabled=0". > > In any case, this isn't something I feel strongly about; I do think that (if > it could easily be parsed, which it seems is not the case) then this would > be useful but never essential, and taking on board the comments about XHTML > I don't feel I can make a string case for it. > > To tackle the one specific point I was trying to solve, though: In > principle, at least, what would be the opinion on implementing {// ... } as > a single smarty element comment, ie making the following two equivalent > (aside from the former's problems with nesting): > {* {somefunc somevar=someval} *} > {// somefunc somevar=someval} > > -- > Mark Rogers, > More Solutions Ltd :: Tel: 0845 45 89 555 > If you can spare a minute, please visit www.votesophie.co.uk > > -- > Smarty Development Mailing List (http://smarty.php.net/) > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php