> So, instead of returning
>
> {with_phased_vars,
> [{title, "foo"},
> {meta, "bar"}],
> {ewc, navbar, [A]}}
>
> you would return
>
> {response,
> [{phased_vars,
> [{title, "foo"},
> {meta, "bar"}],
> {body, {ewc, navbar, [A]}}]}.
How does that stack? How would I return two {ewc}s? Like this?:
{response,
[{phased_vars,
[{title, "foo"},
{meta, "bar"}],
{body, [{ewc, navbar, [A]}
{ewc, cookies, [A, cookies:find()]}]}]}.
It looks good though; if I'm returning phased values like that, I'm
probably setting headers and whatnot, since I'm probably the initial
{ewc}. The only problem is that only initial {ewc}s can do it, not
nested ones (unless there are many levels of {phased,ewc...}). That's
fine for my purposes, but I don't know about most people.
>
> The 'response' tuple already lets you return values that aren't passed
> to the view function. I think we should reuse it.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Yariv
>
>
>
> On Nov 17, 2007 6:35 PM, David King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, I agree. I think 'with_properties' and 'set_properties' sounds
>>> too generic, though. Maybe 'with_meta_vals' or 'with_phased_vals'?
>>
>> I like with_phased_vals, that's relatively clear
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"erlyweb" group.
To post to this group, send email to erlyweb@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/erlyweb?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---