Difference between revisions of "Issue:Including nested templates no longer works with MW 1.12's new parser behaviour"
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
Could somebody find out how to nest templates in future (regardless of DPL)? '''I think the developers of the MW parser should be told that they are going to cut down a useful behaviour.''' What alternative do they offer? I would be pleased if you could find out! | Could somebody find out how to nest templates in future (regardless of DPL)? '''I think the developers of the MW parser should be told that they are going to cut down a useful behaviour.''' What alternative do they offer? I would be pleased if you could find out! | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
:[[User:Gero|Gero]] 08:07, 28 March 2008 (CET) | :[[User:Gero|Gero]] 08:07, 28 March 2008 (CET) | ||
Revision as of 09:07, 28 March 2008
| Description: | Including nested templates no longer works with MW 1.12's new parser behaviour |
| Extension / Version: | DPL / 1.6.8 |
| Type / Status: | Bug / open |
Contents
Problem
Including nested templates no longer works with MW 1.12's new parser behaviour.
Pre 1.12 behaviour
{{#dpl:title=Random|include={Template Name}:Parameter}}
Which until 1.12 outputted the contents of the field, even if it contained another (nested) template.
Article random contents
{{Template Name
Parameter = {{Another Template|Something}}
}}
Post 1.12 behaviour
{{#dpl:title=Random|include={Template Name}:Parameter}}
Now outputs:
{{Another Template|Something}} (Without parsing it)
Reply
This is surprising! As far as I understand the new MW parser version will never allow the kind of constructs you mention. http://svn.wikimedia.org/svnroot/mediawiki/tags/REL1_12_0RC1/phase3/RELEASE-NOTES contains a chapter on parser changes which states that the parsing sequence has intentionally been changed and now no longer supports the construction of template code by other templates.
Could somebody find out how to nest templates in future (regardless of DPL)? I think the developers of the MW parser should be told that they are going to cut down a useful behaviour. What alternative do they offer? I would be pleased if you could find out!
- Gero 08:07, 28 March 2008 (CET)
