From: Fabien Potencier Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 18:09:05 +0000 (+0200) Subject: merged branch Seldaek/isarray (PR #700) X-Git-Url: http://git.silmor.de/gitweb/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=da9d2eb834212be7434d211118bfa04d50226c1f;p=konrad%2Ftwig.git merged branch Seldaek/isarray (PR #700) Commits ------- c88f8e5 Micro-optimizations 70cca66 Simplify code d78ed66 Add traversable test 5fd2f98 Add docs b2e1675 Add is array test Discussion ---------- is array/traversable tests It's sometimes necessary to display arbitrary data to be able to know if we should recurse or not. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by stof at 2012-04-13T12:13:11Z I'm not sure about the need for ``is array``. All Twig functions related to arrays also support traversable objects --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by Seldaek at 2012-04-13T12:23:32Z Well, I like to have both for explicitness and also because I would try is array without looking at the docs, and I don't think it's right to make is array return true for traversables. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by fabpot at 2012-04-20T09:38:33Z One of the main goal of Twig is to abstract the "real" type of the variables. We have already discussed the introduction of many tests like these ones and I have always rejected them. As many people seems to have a need for them (especially for arrays), I would consider adding the `traversable` test. But as @stof said, Twig tries to blur the difference between traversable objects and arrays, so I'm -1 for adding another test for arrays. `traversable` is probably not the best name for web designers but I don't know what else we can use here. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by stof at 2012-04-20T09:41:05Z In Jinja, there is a built-in test for this using ``iterable``: http://jinja.pocoo.org/docs/templates/#builtin-tests --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by Seldaek at 2012-04-20T09:41:32Z Ok. I can live with dropping the array test. Now for the name, `is forloopable`? I am kind of at a loss as well apart from traversable. I think if it's clearly mentioned in the docs it's ok. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by Seldaek at 2012-04-20T09:52:12Z iterable sounds ok to me, but just as confusing as traversable I guess to the unknowing. A sidenote, if I update the PR, any objection to adding the "undefined" test as well? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by fabpot at 2012-04-20T10:01:27Z Let's use `iterable` as this is what Jinja already uses. Why would you want an `undefined` test as we already have `defined`? (`if foo is not defined` works well enough) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by Seldaek at 2012-04-20T11:16:26Z I just saw jinja had it on that page, and I thought why not add it too? Still not a huge fan of the "not" for negation. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by fabpot at 2012-04-20T12:18:17Z Well, let's first finish the `iterable` test first and let's discuss `undefined` in another PR or issue. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by fabpot at 2012-04-20T17:10:28Z I can finish the PR is you want. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by Seldaek at 2012-04-20T17:13:11Z If you like sure, it's mostly deleting code anyway. I just have to finish some work stuff now.. --- da9d2eb834212be7434d211118bfa04d50226c1f