| 
	
 | 
 Posted by Jochem Maas on 06/13/74 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 
>
 
[Back to original message] 
 |