> Is it a stupid idea to modify propertytag? Probably not. Is it worth > adding two new tags that are subsets of property tag? Definitely not.
Otherway around. PropertyTag is a SUPERSET of the print and push tags. (A friend on irc pointed out that there's actually a THIRD use for the property tag, which I failed to document. An email on this issue is imminent I hear, and updating the docs to reflect this will make the property tag even more confusing.) > I know > nothing of how elegant or ugly its internals are. I didn't even know > the dual usage of propertytag until it was pointed out here. Why are you arguing against a change that you then don't have full appreciation of? There are several uses of the push and print tags that property tag cannot fill. Let me repeat this: can _not_ fill. I have pointed this out and now I've corrected the docs to point this out too. Read the docs on propery tag that I updated. You will see that the docs are confusing, but that they can't be made more clear becuase the propery tag in itself is confusing. I am beginning to get sick and tired of people bashing my suggestion without knowing what they are bashing. "Just document it" is not a valid argument IF YOU DO NOT DOCUMENT IT. You will notice the irony in the fact that I documented the property tag, despite me being the biggest opponent to it. Now let me point out the obvious one last time: this addition (not change as some people have called it just to make it sound unreasonable) is not something I want in 1.3. // Anders Hovmöller ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by: See the NEW Palm Tungsten T handheld. Power & Color in a compact size! http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?palm0001en _______________________________________________ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
