[ic] @@MV_PAGE@@

[Ron Phipps]

> From: interchange-users-admin@interchange.redhat.com
[mailto:interchange-
> users-admin@interchange.redhat.com] On Behalf Of Mike Heins
> 
> Quoting Ron Phipps (rphipps@reliant-solutions.com):
> > We used to use @@MV_PAGE@@ in our comments and in figuring out which
> > page should come next after logging on, but in ic 4.8.3 I noticed
this
> > no longer worked for us (@@MV_PAGE@@ resulted in the string
'@@MV_PAGE'
> > not in the value it used to contain) and I had to replace it with
> > @_MV_PAGE_@.  The docs say this about the notation:
> >
> >
> > "If a variable is called with @_VARIABLE_@, and there is no catalog
> > Variable with its name, the global Variable value will be inserted.
> >
> > There are several standard variables which should not be used:
> >
> > MV_PAGE
> >
> > Name of the last page read in, as in the page called with
mv_nextpage or
> > mv_orderpage."
> >
> > Did the use of @@MV_PAGE@@ go away and was replaced with the global
> > variable or is there some other issue I am not seeing?
> 
> It hasn't changed. It will never, however, be interpolated inside
> a variable. (It will if the variable is an [include ..], though).
> 

We have this at the bottom of our region: <!-- @@MV_PAGE@@ --> and when
we look at the source of the page this is shown: <!-- @@MV_PAGE@@ -->.
Is @@MV_PAGE@@ supposed to be interpolated when it appears inside of a
template that is displayed by using the following: @_TRB_BOTTOM_@
(TRB_BOTTOM is our template bottom)?  FYI we use low traffic settings
during development, so changes appear without restart in our
templates... is it possible that the way templates are included changed
from how they were included in 4.6.3?  In 4.6.x a template (low traffic)
was picked up using [include filename] in catalog.cfg and now in 4.8.x
templates are picked up using the 'DirConfig' directive in theme.cfg
(which may not use include?).  This would support the theory that
@@MV_PAGE@@ has not changed, but the method in which a template is
included has changed.  As a test I replaced @_TRB_BOTTOM_@ with 
[include templates/site/regions/TRB_BOTTOM] and changed @_MV_PAGE_@ to
@@MV_PAGE@@ and things worked as they did in 4.6.3.  

Now on to the more important question, should there be any side effect
to using @_MV_PAGE_@ (which does work inside a template in 4.8.x)
instead of @@MV_PAGE@@ (which stopped working inside a template after
4.6.x)?  What is the difference between these in the sense of MV_PAGE
(it does makes sense for template variables) besides that one works and
the other does not for this situation?

Thanks for your help,
-Ron