On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 01:15:48PM -0400, Conrad Dunkerson wrote:
Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
And yet, AFAIK, {{yesterday}} *is* a template.
If it isn't now, it
certainly started as one, and that's the old cycle: you implement the
feature you need with what you have, and if it's useful and
inefficient, you then push it down into the core.
You haven't, as far as I can see, provided a
cogent argument as to why
it's good. Hopefully, I have clarified both my point of view and my
perception of yours, and some other folks will also jump back on this
bandwagon, that we may hear theirs as well.
As the person who wrote that {{yesterday}} template allow me just to say a
big "ditto".
Glad to know I'm not a *total* moron this week. Thanks.
I agree that alot of this 'stuff' would be
better handled in the MediaWiki
software... but I'm not going to hassle the developers to implement this
feature and that feature and the other feature. I take whatever they give
me and use it to the limits of it's applicability. At some point, if they
are useful, those implementations become widespread enough that their
inefficiency is a notable issue and they are replaced with a new
capability in the base system. That is happening right now for 'qif',
'calcadd', and various unit conversion templates.
And that capsulizes my argument: there's no scalable way to determine
what extension functionality is *useful* and *desired* if there's no
lighterweight way to implement it than by writing extensions directly
in PHP.
That's a bug, in my estimation.
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth jra(a)baylink.com
Designer Baylink RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates The Things I Think '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA
http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet and in e-mail?