perl-embperl mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Neil Gunton <>
Subject Re: [$ hidden $] bug in 2.0?
Date Thu, 28 Jul 2005 19:09:55 GMT
Gerald Richter wrote:
> Hi Neil,
>>I'm attaching the Embperl tar and the source file. You should 
>>be able to duplicate what I am seeing using these... if not 
>>then maybe reality is becoming even more distorted here in 
>>America than I thought!
>>Let me know if/what you see...
> I found the difference. You really used a "bug" in the 1.3 parser.
> You wrote [$ hidden $] and I wrote [$hidden$]. The difference is the space
> after the hidden. The 1.3 parser interprets this space as an first empty
> argument. You can get the same result with [$ hidden , $] (with or without
> spaces) in Embperl 2.
> I think the way Embperl 2 behaves is more predictable and clean. I don't
> think it makes sense to move this bug over to Embperl 2.
> You can simple do a   s/hidden/hidden ,/   in your code and things should
> work with both versions.
> Gerald

Hi Gerald,

Thinking about this some more, I would like to make one more plea to you about making %fdat
work as 
it did before. The reason is consistency and simplicity. As long as I've used Embperl, I've
%fdat to handle the form variables being passed in, and to control the values going out in
generated HTML. When I want to build a populated form, I set variables in %fdat, and these
are also set up automatically for the script. It's really a very convenient and easy way to
this stuff. I believe that it's important to make this mechanism work consistently and in
a way that 
doesn't introduce needless additional code for application programmers.

For example, if I want to set a value for a form field (not hidden, but a real field) then
I can 
just set that value in %fdat, somewhere prior to the form definition. Then, later on, Embperl

automatically populates the value of the field accordingly. I believe that this is also the
way it 
is supposed to work in Embperl 2.0. This should, in my opinion, work in the same way for the

[$hidden$] meta command. It is highly unintuitive to require a comma after the hidden keyword,
or to 
require a '@ffld = keys %fdat' in order to transfer variables over. You never had to do that
so why should it be necessary now? Maybe there was a bug in the prior implementation of [$hidden$],

but that same bug surely did not also apply to the way we set non-hidden form variables. For
we simply set the variable value in %fdat. Making it different for hidden variables is just
to me.

Can't we just make %fdat the one-stop-shop for form variables, as I have always thought it
was? I'm 
not just saying this because all my code works that way - I'm making an impassioned plea for

simplicity as well as backward compatibility. I realize it's not the way you designed the
version, but please consider this as being something that might be worth bending.

Of course, if there is a very good reason for it *not* to work this way (apart from ease of
implementation) then I'm all ears...



To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message