Paul Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Why not just add a "namespace" to the variables then?
Because I might not have control over what variable names the include template chooses for itself. If it plays by the book, everything is fine. If not, I will inadvertently clobber its variables with my param() calls. With my proposal, the include writers can write includes just like before, and the includer can *choose* to contain the include in a namespace. I suspect that even the people who have used includes so far would find this unintrusive because it requires no changes to includes, only an optional enhancement to the inclusion process. > Then in your function (i have to do this in perl, I don't know > java): Your example is appreciated. If this proposal is not accepted, I'll probably do it that way. (Or perhaps I'll introduce the namespace attribute in my implementation, but I'm wary of adding incompatibilities.) Either way, I hope the developers will at least consider this IMHO useful addition. ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Html-template-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/html-template-users
