|
|
Posted by Jochem Maas on 10/01/74 11:20
messju mohr wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 03:14:15PM +0200, Jochem Maas wrote:
> [...]
>
>>>are you trolling? it should read "keep it simple for the designers, so
>>
>>no I'm not. I use Smarty everyday, I accept it the way it is mostly and
>>hack it
>>where I can/need (which is not much!). I'm entitled to speak up about the
>>whys and wherefores - personally I think indepth discussion about
>>theory as well as practice is a good thing, but if you want to start
>>waving the troll flag as soon as someone questions [part of] Smarty's
>>design/implementation that is your perogative.
>
>
> Okay, to me you sounded very rude so i thought you just want to rant,
I would like to be part of the discussion that possibly leads to improvements
in the next generation of Smarty. - I figure that if I say nothing then
its pure chance that things will change to my liking - if I do speak-up/discuss
then at least I have done something to state my case :-)
that In no way discounts the possibility that I am indeed rude ;-)
> but I'm (quite obviosuly) no native english speaker, so the error is
> on my side, sorry.
no probs.
>
> Just as a note: I think the word you mean is "prerogative", but it's
> something i neither have nor want to have.
good catch!
>
>
>>>give them *simple* 'programmatic' interfaces/paradigms to work with"
>>>or something like that, i think.
>
>
> [... food for endless discussions optimized...]
>
> To get back on topic:
>
> I agree I with that having $smarty.request is a bad thing. But I'm -1
> on removing it for the sake of backwards compatibility.
more than sane.
>
> greetings
> messju
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|