On Tue, 7 May 2002, Cory Trese wrote:
> Is this patch against 2.3 or a previous version?
Yup, 2.3.
> > I don't think this will break any existing code but it does constitute a
> > change in functionality. Can anyone think of a case where this would be
> > the wrong behavior?
>
> Well, what is the difference? Almost none as far as I can see from
> HTML::Template, it seems to act about the same using 'tmpl_path( )'.
Well, it's possible that some cases where load_tmpl() would have failed in
the past will now succeed. I doubt that will cause much trouble though
since I doubt people have code in production that can't find its
templates! A pathological case involving intentionally failing
load_tmpl()s and eval{} is possible...
> My only question would be about setting an array-ref using 'tmpl_path(
> )' to fill the 'PATH=>' argument to 'load_tmpl( )'.
That might be useful, although it's just as easy to do:
$self->load_template('foo.tmpl', path => ['bar/baz', '/bif/bing']);
The patch goes way out of its way to make sure this still works, even if
you also set TMPL_PATH.
> Why isn't this patch part of the main tree? Has it somehow offended someone
> ;)
Because Jesse hasn't put it there yet? I don't think anyone had seen it
before I posted it here. Since I can't think of any good reasons to
reject it, I imagine it will appear in some future release...
-sam
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Web Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/cgiapp@lists.vm.com/
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
