Re: found a bug in 3.13.9 dbLoadTemplate - after all that time

[Benjamin Franksen <benjamin.franksen@bessy.de>]

On Friday 04 June 2004 15:09, Ralph Lange wrote:
>  o Allowing $(name=default) in the template database, as the first level
>    of default values.
>    (-> per template)
>
>  o Allowing a line like
>       default{SCAN=Passive, HOPR=9, LOPR=1, ADEL=0.5, MDEL=0.1}
>    in the head of a file entry in a substitution file, mutually
>    exclusive with the unchanged pattern{} keyword used for tabular
>    material - to avoid messy incomprehensive tables.

I can't see a conflict between pattern{} style instantiation and default{} 
definitions. Of course, default{} should appear before pattern (if at all). 
For the case that a <name> is mentioned inside the pattern{} as well as 
inside the default{}, two solutions make sense: First, disallow it. Second, 
the values in the table override the default, effectively disabling it. I 
prefer the second version because it is more uniform i.e. the same behavior 
as in the non-pattern case. NB: Allowing <name>=<default-value> inside a 
pattern{} would make sense only if one could remove the values for this 
<name> from the table which would destroy the 1:1 correspondence between 
columns and is therefore not a good idea, IMO.

>    The default specifications on this line would override the default
>    definitions in the template database.
>    (-> per use)
>  o Allowing the usual unchanged macro substitutions in the lines of the
>    substitution file.
>    (-> per instance)
>
> Should fit any of the mentioned cases without implying anything on
> anyone, shouldn't it?

With the exception of above remark, I second that.

Ben