Re: [SMARTY] Re: [SMARTY-DEV] Re: [SMARTY] modifier_string_format in 2.5.0-RC1

func_get_args() would work well for modifiers with variable number of parameters. But that breaks all existing modifiers because right now they look like: smarty_modifier_foo($string, $foo, $bar, ...) {} and would need to be changed to: smarty_modifier_foo($string, $params) { $foo = $params[0]; $bar = $params[1]; ... } Since we couldn't even do something like func_get_args() when Smarty was first designed, that probably has an influence on why string_format works the way it does. Monte On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 16:12, Paul Lockaby wrote: > messju mohr wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 03:55:47PM -0600, Monte Ohrt wrote: > > > >>Hmm, I'm not the originating author of the modifier structure, but I'll > >>take a guess :-) Function attributes have name/value pairs so an > >>associative array makes sense, and order is not an issue. OTOH, modifier > >>parameters are only values so their order is important. I suppose they > >>could have been passed as an enumerated array of values, that way the > >>second parameter can be the smarty object much the same as functions > >>are. But then your modifier would need to know what each value of > >>$params[0], $params[1], etc. are for without an intuitive name. > > > > > > one can use func_get_args() to write modifiers with a variable number > > arguments, so there is no need to break bc for this. > > > > Hmm, didn't realize that. Excuse me for a moment for being dumb. > > > but having &$smarty available in modifiers would be worth it for me... :) > > > > ~Paul -- Monte Ohrt <monte@ispi.net>