[ZPT] Re: RFC: TALES adapters and TAL/Tales variable namespaces

[Ian Bicking]

Jim Fulton wrote:
> One disadvantage I see with the cast notation is that it's
> a bit jarring in:
> 
>   a/b/(adapter)c/d
> 
> as the adapter is applied to a/b/c. The order just doesn't
> seem quite right.

That is indeed jarring, especially since c isn't an object, it's just a 
name, and a/b/c is the object in question.  This would look somewhat 
better with the current : mechanism, like a/b/c:adapter/d

My concern with this use of : was that it looked like it should be 
parsed like (a/b/c):(adapter/d), as opposed to ((a/b/c):adapter)/d -- 
maybe using something other than : wouldn't imply this grouping.  Or 
maybe if I got used to it the grouping would seem more natural.  I guess 
my intuition is that / binds more closely than : (even if there isn't 
any real precedence at all in TAL expressions).

-- 
Ian Bicking  /  ianb at colorstudy.com  /  http://blog.ianbicking.org