Last modified: 2007-01-17 10:09:33 UTC
This would be useful to allow a template to "pass" values (such as formatting data) besides just its wikitext to containing templates. I'm sure there would be other uses. It is a very simple, fast extension and thus highly secure, and also there would be little reason for overuse/abuse.
Do we have a URL?
[[m:VariablesExtension]]. Tim has expressed dislike for this idea in the past, so possibly WONTFIX.
I agree with Tim Starling on this point.
Hey guys, I'm a newbie and I have no idea who Tim Starling is, what his issues are, or where to look for his comments. OK, I just googled him and I know the former (he's the honcho here, at least for MediaWiki parser functions) but that doesn't help me with my latter two questions. A link would be great; even better would be if such chatter happened on Meta [[m:Talk:ParserFunctions]] or [[m:Talk:VariablesExtension]] (also, where appropriate, at [[m:Talk:StringFunctions]]), where mere mortals can see it.
I rather suspect that Tim's point was not one of performance, or anything else, but of furthering this nasty trend of taking wiki markup somewhere it should not be going. That's certainly my objection.
Strongly agree with Rob, Tim, and all the other people with a clue on this. By the way, this is "a place where mere mortals can see discussion"; it's just not a place where "mere mortals" (also known as part of our userbase who don't choose to become involved in technical discussions) look. That's fine, but this is the place for technical discussion, not meta.
(In reply to comment #6) > Strongly agree with Rob, Tim, and all the other people with a clue on this. Please don't insult our users.
Hey, I just found [[7865]] (I don't know how to link here yet, so maybe that should be [[bugzilla:7865]], since I can't edit it later) which is the original bug for this. (Sorry, the search defaults to only open bugs, which is why I didn't see it before). If you had just marked this bug as a dupe before, my objections about "mere mortals" would have been irrelevant. As to the substantive issues, see my comment at that bug. I suspect that given the flaming going on here, though, that people's opinions on this have already ossified, which is a pity.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 7865 ***
