Re: [SMARTY-DEV] Re: literal and javascript

Pete M writes: > Does IT - not my side ????? this is all I want !!!! > > > For one, I'd expect this to work as it does right now (taken from the > Smarty > > docs): > > {literal} > > SYNTAX EXAMPLES: > > {func var="test $foo.bar test"} <-- sees > > $foo.bar > > {/literal} We're probably talking at cross purposes. The text above will show exactly as written, the backticks are not interpretted. This is as it should be, so that a syntax example, such as that above, can be run through Smarty protected by {literal} without being touched. Otherwise we couldn't (easily) use Smarty to document Smarty... This is not what you want; you are wishing to change {literal}'s behaviour on the basis that backticks would be more usefully interpretted than not. What I posted was a (badly explained) example of why this would be a bad thing. FYI: I have a working {script}{/script} block handler now as described elsewhere; that works quite well for stuff like this. -- Mark Rogers, More Solutions Ltd :: Tel: 0845 45 89 555