[stringtemplate-interest] mapping templates

[Terence Parr]

yeah, that's what i'm thinking.  f() really means invoke and we're not  
invoking.  In fact, even names:bold doesn't execute bold until later  
when we write out the results.

Core of new version is working.  Sooooo much simpler. one grammar, for  
example, not multiple to parse templates.  Bytecode compiler / interp  
are simple.

I should probably cut this version out and use as a template DSL  
example w/o complexity of full ST :)

Ter

On Oct 7, 2009, at 4:28 PM, Sam Harwell wrote:

> This is the general form:
>
> <{sequence}:{template taking one argument}>
>
> If the template is a template named "bold" declared elsewhere, then  
> the
> form <names:bold> makes much more sense, especially since "bold()"  
> would
> imply that the template takes no arguments.
>
> Sam
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: stringtemplate-interest-bounces at antlr.org
> [mailto:stringtemplate-interest-bounces at antlr.org] On Behalf Of  
> Terence
> Parr
> Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 2:29 PM
> To: stringtemplate-interest Template
> Subject: [stringtemplate-interest] mapping templates
>
> Hi, there is a syntax bugaboo in ST v3.
>
> <names:bold()> means apply bold to each element of names but t=foo()
> in an arg list or wherever means invoke foo and put ST into t.  Seems
> like foo should be a template name and foo() should be an invocation.
> That would imply we'd chnage to:
>
> <names:bold>
>
> Makes more sense if you ask me.  Other thoughts?
>
> Ter
> _______________________________________________
> stringtemplate-interest mailing list
> stringtemplate-interest at antlr.org
> http://www.antlr.org/mailman/listinfo/stringtemplate-interest