On 9/11/2011 12:07 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On 11.9.2011, at 13.01, Stephan Bosch wrote:
I've made the limits for the include extension configurable now. This will be
included in the next release.
Is there really a need for such a limit? Isn't it mainly to avoid infinite
loops, which could also be detected by seeing if there are any actual include
loops?
The detection of actual include loops is already in place, so the depth
limit could be a bit of overkill indeed. The existence of this limit
probably has something to do with the fact that code generation for the
include extension is still a recursive process (whereas runtime
interpretation is not). This means that (very) deep nesting could cause
stack overflow at compile time. Once the include extension goes RFC I'll
fix this along with implementing the new :optional tag.
Regards,
Stephan.
