Re: weird macro params issue

You can release 2.3.13 now, and these things can go in 2.3.14. This  
issue is admittedly a language corner case, and while I'd like to  
address it for sake of determinism, it is by no means urgent. There  
will always be One Last Thing to put in before the release and then it  
gets delayed and delayed... Better to release more frequently, I say;  
2.3.12 will be three months old by tomorrow.

Attila.

On 2008.05.02., at 19:30, Daniel Dekany wrote:

> Friday, May 2, 2008, 7:18:44 PM, Attila Szegedi wrote:
>
>> The order of populating defaulted variables is undefined -- they're
>> being pulled out by an iterator out of a hash map. So if this worked
>> for you, then you just had blind luck so far, I'm afraid.
>>
>> We could ensure the order going forward, or -- since with named-
>> argument invocations there's not really any specific order -- even
>> code it so that it fills out default expressions iteratively: go over
>> them once, resolving what it can; then repeat until it gets an
>> iteration where either (a) all default expressions got resolved or  
>> (b)
>> it got something other than an InvalidReferenceExcepion or (c) it
>> could not resolve any additional default expressions (and in this
>> case, rethrow the InvalidReferenceException for one arbitrarily  
>> chosen
>> unresolved default expression). That'd support any weird defaulting
>> dependency order as long as there are no circular references, and
>> circular references would also fall out with an
>> InvalidReferenceException.
>>
>> Anyone object to having this logic in a subsequent FreeMarker  
>> release?
>
> You mean, in 2.3.13, right? No objection on my side, and of course
> only the iterative filling of the defaults will be good. The other
> solution would be non-BC anyway.
>
> I plan to wait with 2.3.13 until this and maybe ?round/?floor/?ceil
> are added.
>
>> Attila.
>>
>> On 2008.05.02., at 10:58, John Cherouvim wrote:
>>
>>> Hello
>>>
>>> I have this macro:
>>> <#macro test a b=a c=b>
>>>   ${a} - ${b} - ${c}
>>> </#macro>
>>>
>>> And this client code:
>>> <@test 1 /><br/>
>>> <@test 1 2 /><br/>
>>> <@test 1 2 3 /><br/>
>>>
>>> Which produces:
>>> 1 - 1 - 1
>>> 1 - 2 - 2
>>> 1 - 2 - 3
>>>
>>> Now if I just change the param names of the macro:
>>> <#macro test foo bar=foo baz=bar>
>>>   ${foo} - ${bar} - ${baz}
>>> </#macro>
>>>
>>> And keep the same client code, then the output produced is:
>>> InvalidReferenceException: Expression bar is undefined on line 20,
>>> column 31 in index.ftl.
>>> 1 - 2 - 2
>>> 1 - 2 - 3
>>>
>>> The first call fails when it tries to evaluate the baz=bar. Why is
>>> that?
>>>
>>> Also, is this usage valid in freemarker? To have parameters  
>>> default to
>>> the value of other parameters. I find it very useful for some use
>>> cases.
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>> Ioannis
>
> -- 
> Best regards,
> Daniel Dekany







-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference 
Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100. 
Use priority code J8TL2D2. 
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone