Re: [SMARTY-DEV] Re: object support

> > I do, however, perfectly understand the argument that designers > shouldn't be burdened with knowledge about OOP, but why would this > syntax require that? If you're working with designers that shouldn't be > exposed to OOP, you just go about business the old way, and assign > things in bits and pieces. Nobody would force your hand in using this > more advanced syntax if you felt it wasn't right for your audience. > Typical, I was just about to say exactly this. If your HTML monkey will not get to grips with a new syntax don't frighten her with it. Possibly to avoid problems this should only go in an appendix to the Manual (when it's added), otherwise it will become a bandwagon an everyone will try and use it. I see this as an advanced feature which rounds some of the missing corners of an otherwise first-class piece of software. Yes the syntax should be as close to the syntax we currently have, but we mustn't be lead in to thinking providing direct Object support is unachievable because we cannot see a way to fit it in without extending the syntax. At the end of the day this is probably going to be more useful to the PHP programmer who is also designing the pages, so a PHP like syntax is what he expects. If its a fresh HTML monkey and the whole site is using objects then the syntax is going to be the only one she learns. In mixed sites there is going to be some possibility for confusion, but when I first used a provided API I had to check the syntax for every call, now I know then, and the Monkey will soon learn what requires which syntax. Monte's complicated but valid syntax is I feel what we need for the Object support. Nick (c) obviously a "Object support in Smarty" zealot