".repeated" is not strictly necessary

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Proposal:

{.section} will be augmented to repeat if the node type is a list [].

{.repeated section} will then become superfluous.  But for readability,
we'll keep it, and it could *enforce* that the node type is a list, unlike
{.section}.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by gtempacc...@yahoo.com on 10 Apr 2009 at 12:34

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I don't think this is a good idea, it completely breaks a reasonable use case in
json-template which I am using myself quite a lot.
{{{
var jsonA = {
  functions: [
    { name: "Foo" },
    { name: "Bar" },
    { baz: "Baz" }
  ],
  classes: [
    { name: "Foo" },
    { name: "Bar" },
    { baz: "Baz" }
  ]
};
var jsonB = {
  functions: [
    { name: "Foo" },
    { name: "Bar" },
    { baz: "Baz" }
  ]
};
var jsonC = {
  classes: [
    { name: "Foo" },
    { name: "Bar" },
    { baz: "Baz" }
  ]
};
var jsonD = {};
}}}
{{{
{.section functions}
<h2>Functions</h2>
<ul>
{.repeated section @}
  <li>{name|html}</li>
{.end}
</ul>
{.end}
{.section classes}
<h2>Classes</h2>
<ul>
{.repeated section @}
  <li>{name|html}</li>
{.end}
</ul>
{.end}
}}}

If you use jsonA a list of functions and classes are shown; jsonB just the 
functions;
jsonC just the Classes; jsonD neither.

Original comment by nadir.se...@gmail.com on 19 May 2009 at 4:19

[GoogleCodeExporter]

That's true, but with the suggestion your examples wouldn't change.  All that 
would
happen is that you can omit {.repeated section @} from your templates and 
instead
include {.section @}.  Since 'functions' and 'classes' are lists, it would know 
how
to do the right thing.

That said, as mentioned I don't think the template is any more readable this 
way. 
But it would be optional.

Original comment by gtempacc...@yahoo.com on 19 May 2009 at 4:04

[GoogleCodeExporter]

If we end up doing issue 34, then this is not as compelling.  In that case 
{.section}
on a dictionary and {.repeated section} will mean totally different things.

Right now {.repeated section} is idiomic on an array but {.section} can 
actually also
be used.  So I prefer to keep this distinction:

foo: [1,2,3,4]

{.section foo}
  Here is a list of integers joined by commas {@|join ,}
{.or}
  No integers
{.end}

So actually this should probably be rejected.  repeated section stays distinct.

Original comment by gtempacc...@yahoo.com on 14 Nov 2009 at 8:53

• Added labels: Priority-Low, Type-Other
• Removed labels: Priority-Medium, Type-Defect