Adding Dynamic Names #1
Conversation
I need a review, let me know if this is okay and if I need to build this.
ghost
mentioned this pull request
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks a lot! Sorry for the delayed review, for some reason I was not watching all activity on my own fork yet. That's fixed now.
Besides my comments below, I have one request:
- There is a paragraph near the top of the manpage where it mentions the spec. That should be updated to say that it reflects version 1.3.0 of the spec.
and one suggestion:
- Maybe briefly mention dynamic names again in the section on Parent tags. Compare to how I document dotted names in the Variables section, and then briefly mention them again in the Blocks section.
I need a review, let me know if this is okay and if I need to build this with Ronn.
It's convenient for me if you build it, but I know this can be challenging. If it proves too challenging, I don't mind doing it myself.
I will be pretty busy these next few days until September so feel free to commit changes in my fork by yourself if you feel to. I will try my best to be here. :)
I might do that at some point, if I think I can make the changes much sooner than you (which is not yet the case), but for now, I'll just leave it at documenting my thoughts. :-)
No worries. I have been kind of busy lately but now I'm back at it again!
I got it. I am working on these right now. |
Co-authored-by: Julian Gonggrijp <dev@juliangonggrijp.com>
|
Okay I tried to make the description less technical and verbose. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am not sure whether the way I mentioned Dynamic Names in the Blocks and Parents paragraphs is okay, what was your idea on that?
Your current text seems to be based on the observation that inheritance and dynamic partials are to some extent alternatives. Since most manpage readers will be unaware of that, I agree it's probably not very helpful.
I meant that some implementations (at least mine, possibly also the ones by @gasche or @bobthecow) allow using dynamic names inside parent tags:
{{<*path.to.parentName}}{{/*path.to.parentName}}
So it may be useful to mention that this is an option in some implementations, similar to how the Section section mentions that dotted names are an option (after the Variables section has already explained at length what dotted names do).
man/mustache.5.ron
Outdated
| Dynamic Names consists of an asterisk, followed by a dotted name which follows | ||
| the same notation and the same resolution as in an Interpolation tag. That is | ||
| `{{>*dynamic}}`. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Perhaps compare this to the hypothetical {{>{{dynamic}}}} to further clarify what it does.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think that including wrong examples may be confusing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You are quite right that it could be confusing. Very friendly of you to go with it anyway! I still think the hypothetical nested tag can also serve to clarify the concept, but please feel absolutely welcome to add an additional remark, something like (which is not allowed!) just before or after the forbidden example.
|
Okay I'm back at it again! |
Oh, no need to apologize! I hope the struggle was not because of this pull request? In any case, best wishes! (I will review next.) |
man/mustache.5.ron
Outdated
| Dynamic Names consists of an asterisk, followed by a dotted name which follows | ||
| the same notation and the same resolution as in an Interpolation tag. That is | ||
| `{{>*dynamic}}`. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You are quite right that it could be confusing. Very friendly of you to go with it anyway! I still think the hypothetical nested tag can also serve to clarify the concept, but please feel absolutely welcome to add an additional remark, something like (which is not allowed!) just before or after the forbidden example.
Co-authored-by: Julian Gonggrijp <dev@juliangonggrijp.com>
Co-authored-by: Julian Gonggrijp <dev@juliangonggrijp.com>
Co-authored-by: Julian Gonggrijp <dev@juliangonggrijp.com>
Noooo noo absolutely not! I like working with you! Okay so now I have committed all the changes you suggested and the only thing I have left is to add an additional remark to that forbidden example we were discussing earlier. |
Awesome! |
Yup, my implementation does as well. |
|
@anomal00us could you change the last commit so it omits the mustache.1 files? The annoying thing about the rebuild is that it makes those files seem as if they were updated on the date of the latest build, even though the content is exactly the same as... many years ago. |
Sure! |
|
Thanks again @anomal00us ! |
|
You're welcome, it has been nice to work with you :) |
I need a review, let me know if this is okay and if I need to build this with Ronn.
I will be pretty busy these next few days until September so feel free to commit changes in my fork by yourself if you feel to. I will try my best to be here. :)