[ZPT] Mini proposal: repeat-define and repeat-condition

[Troy Farrell]

Errrrggghh.
That means that any macro I borrow from another file could have a 
different order of operations.  Be careful if you try to metal:fill-slot 
inside one of these.  Your tal:operations would be different.  This is 
more complex than it needs to be... (not that I have the solution)

Troy

Clemens Robbenhaar wrote:
> Troy Farrell writes:
>  > MMmmmm.  My first thought is that this would break any code I ship that 
>  > depends on a certain order of operations :(
>  > 
>  > Jamie Heilman wrote:
>  > > Chris Withers wrote:
>  > > 
>  > >>Yeah, but it increases the size of ZPT's grammar, which is big enough 
>  > >>already IMHO...
>  > > 
>  > > 
>  > > I agree.  My thought though, is why not just let the user define the
>  > > operation order of TAL statements.  I for one would love to move
>  > > omit-tag before atributes as afaict computing attributes and then
>  > > throwing away the entire tag is a waste of time.[1]  I understand that
>  > > fully customizable op order may yeild an interpreter thats too slow
>  > > though, I haven't looked at the TAL engine to see what dynamically
>  > > changing the grammar would entail.  Thoughts?
>  > > 
> 
>  ... unless the order of operations is defined in the page template or
> so, and can be shipped together with the page template.
> 
>  (This does not imply I have any idea what "defined in the page template
> or so" may mean ;-)
> 
> Clemens