Re: [SMARTY-DEV] object problems

Hello, On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 10:58:17AM -0600, Monte Ohrt wrote: > That's pretty much the argument. The benefit of supporting access to > objects in the templates is tremendous, but it would be even better if > we could accomplish this without new template syntax. The template > designer has no care about the underlying data structure, so why make a > different syntax for it? The closest we've come is registering objects > as functions, but this has many drawbacks. It is seems almost inevitable > that a new syntax would be required (php-style object syntax), unless we > can figure out another way that will work. > > Monte > > On Tue, 2003-01-21 at 10:48, Dennis Gearon wrote: > > I wonder in all this object talk if having objects available to the: > > > > DESIGNERS, HTML MONKEES, GRAPHIC DESIGNERS, et. al > > > > fits the goal of a template engine? Are we crossing the border between code and display > > separation? > > > > 1/21/2003 8:04:46 AM, Monte Ohrt <monte@ispi.net> wrote: > > > > >It seems the idea of using foo.bar for object syntax isn't working very > > >well. Since objects can be assigned at runtime, there is no way to know > > >at compile time how to compile foo.bar, either as an array or as an > > >object. The overhead of figuring this out at runtime isn't going to be > > >worth it, so it must be compiled correctly. If we are going to support > > >objects in Smarty, it is either going to have to have its own syntax, or > > >we limit the use of objects by having all objects registered, meaning > > >they must exist before the template is executed (or your runtime > > >functions/objects register new objects on-the-fly) > > > > > >options: > > > > > >1) register all objects and methods: > > > > > >$smarty->register('myFoo', $my, 'foo'); > > > > > >{myFoo p1="blah" p2="blah"} > > > > > >PROS: * no new syntax, looks just like a template function call. > > >CONS: * cannot have arrays of objects to loop over > > > * cannot pass object as parameter to function > > > * every method must be registered before hand > > > * property access? > > > > > > > > >2) support new syntax for objects: > > > > > >{$foo->bar($foo, "bar", $blah[0].blah, nl2br($foo))} > > > > > >PROS: * mimics PHP native object syntax (?) > > > * can pass object as parameter to function > > > * can differentiate properties from methods > > >CONS: * new template syntax introduced, now we pass > > > parameters two different ways > > > * may lead to new syntax problems, such as passing > > > objects as parameters to objects > > > > > > > > >We could go this route: > > > > > >{$foo->property} > > >{$foo->method() p1="p1" p2="p2"} > > > > > >But is that much better than > > >{$foo->bar("p1","p2")} > > > > > >The second one could be passed as a parameter, but not the first. But > > >the first one does retain the parameter passing syntax. > > > > > > > > >Any other thoughts/ideas, please do tell. I'd really like to figure out > > >a way to use objects without new syntax or new style of passing > > >parameters, but I don't know if that's feasible. that is really a difficult situation. and maybe i can make it more complicated, with another version :) {$foo.property} {$foo.method p1="p1" p2="p2"} a method-call has to have at least one parameter, it would be treated as a property otherwise. if you really want to call a method without parameters you have to indicate this explicitly suggestions: 1. supply a dummy paramter (CON: a bit wordy) 2. {$foo.method } (CON: hard to distinguish to a property) 3. {$foo.method()} (ressembling php-syntax. CON: inconsistent) 4. {$foo.method ""}) (meaning "empty parameter-list". CON: inconsistent) most of them are of course incosistent with smarty's existing syntax and all of them are far away from perfect. regards messju > > >Monte