Re: 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

-- 
Smarty Development Mailing List (http://smarty.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php