On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 06:34:34AM +0100, Oldak Quill wrote:
On 13/10/06, Mark Clements gmane@kennel17.co.uk wrote:
Thanks for that very detailed breakdown. Given that answer, is there a reason that <onlyinclude> is not documented anywhere? I find it an odd omission if they were all introduced at the same time...
And why do we need both <noinclude> and <includeonly>? Do they not, when placed around slightly different sections of text, perform the same function?
Do this, don't do that; can't you read the signs...?
They reason for such a complimentary pair of operators is that they're self documenting: you can markup what you actually mean, rather than 'not what you don't mean', which can make it easier for latecomers to figure out your intent without extraneous comments.
Cheers, -- jra