Re: Mason 2.0 thoughts

On Sun, 13 May 2007, Jonathan Swartz wrote:

> Expanding the <& |&> syntax is fine with me, though definitely a little 
> unintuitive given that that <& &> always been exclusively for component 
> calls. But at this point we aren't going to be able to introduce any new 
> syntax this major without a little confusion and grumbling from the Mason 
> old-timers, I expect. :)

I'm not wedded to the syntax at all. I just wanted to point out that the 
current CWC feature is pretty close to a more general-purpose filter 
concept.

We had originally talked about using "<| |>" as the CWC syntax, and if 
we're trying to re-orient it away from "calling components" and towards 
"filtering" then maybe that change would make sense.

As long as it still supports components as one possible filter, 
transforming old component code should be trivial.

That actually gets to a larger issue. I just want to say I'm all for new 
syntax, changes, etc., but we should try to at least imagine a way to 
transform the old syntax to the new. This shouldn't be _too_ hard given 
the current parser/compiler architecture. Writing a compiler that produces 
new syntax should be fairly simple.


-dave

/*===================================================
VegGuide.Org                        www.BookIRead.com
Your guide to all that's veg.       My book blog
===================================================*/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/