{block} and {include} without #
- David Grudl
- Nette Core | 8285
There are two ways how to write block names – with or without #. And this is not good.
Macro {include} forces you to use #, so a lot of developers
prefer to use # in {block} too.
In 2.1 I introduced short syntax {#content}. Now I realized
that it was wrong :-(
Short syntax is not understandable. And this looks weird
<div n:#=xxx>. And three syntaxes are even worse
than two.
Much better solution is to remove #. So now it
is possible to use {include content} and you can feel free to
forget #. It was history, but now it has no sense.
- David Grudl
- Nette Core | 8285
In this case is # required because it is not possible to
distinguish whether $name contains file name or block name. But of
course, we can find better syntax for this usage.
I did not create this thread because I want to remove the #,
it still works and will work. The purpose is to solve another problem: when
I teach people to use Latte, they are confused about using/not using these hash
signs. They ask what's the difference. And there is no difference.
- nAS
- Member | 277
As Jan Tvrdík mentioned, this doesn't solve problem with two different syntaxes. Wouldn't be better to prefer block name with # everywhere? As you mention, most developers already prefer # in block name.
P.S. I agree that macro {#name} should be obsoleted, few more
characters ( {block #name} ) increases readability a lot.
- Jan Tvrdík
- Nette guru | 2595
Just to make things clear – you all prefer
<div n:block="#name">...</div> over
<div n:block="name">...</div>, right?
- enumag
- Member | 2118
@Jan Tvrdík: Hmm…
Well in my opinion it's wrong to use the {include} macro for files as well as blocks. The # is there only because of this and cannot be removed completely because of {include #$name}.
Sadly there already is a {includeblock} macro which should be renamed imho. I'd expect it to work as include for blocks, for example {includeblock $name} should be equal to {include #$name}.
- duke
- Member | 650
I suggest keeping the usage of leading # in block names as optional and at
least for now keep the current behavior of {include} macro. I am
not sure about {#blockname} syntax, but perhaps we could keep it as
a syntactic sugar for those who prefer to use this shorter notation, but
I agree sandbox and other tutorials should use {block blockname} notation (same
goes for <div n:#=blockname> vs
<div n:block="blockname">).
I agree with enumag though, that
{includeblock} macro should be renamed as it doesn't include a
block, but AFAIK loads block definitions from a file. I could imagine e.g.
{loadblocks}.
Then sometime in future we could split {include} into two macros
(for files and blocks), but without that intermediate step it would probably
create too much confusion.
- Honza Marek
- Member | 1664
I think two macros (include and includeblock) and no # would be ideal. Unfortunately there are backward compatibility issues.
- enumag
- Member | 2118
@duke: My thoughts exactly. :-)
I'd like to sum up my suggestion:
Changes for 2.1:
- renamed
{includeblock}to{loadblocks} {includeblock}preserved for BC but throwing deprecated error- hashes as they are now
- optionaly deprecated
{block #name} - optionaly deprecated/removed
{#block}syntax
Changes for 3.0:
- new macro
{includeblock name}same as{include #name} - deprecated
{include name},{include #name},{block #name}
- Filip Procházka
- Moderator | 4668
We could have {include file.latte} and {call #name}
:)
But I still prefer writing the # in the block name
everywhere.
