On Aug 9, 2007, at 9:22 PM, Agent Zhang wrote:
On 8/9/07, Jesse Vincent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:That feels pretty natural. Thought the pragma package definition kind of scares me and "HTML::Tags" there feels like it's a full package specification, when I suspect it's actually a fragment of one. Given that, is there a reason to include the "::Tags"?Sorry, it was a typo. It should have been "HTML::TagSet". The intention was to allow the user to specify any package names, for example, Foo::Bar::Baz, instead of restricting him/her to define a custom TagSet class under certain namespace (i.e. Template::Declare::TagSet::*). Maybe it's not worth it. If the user specify Foo::Bar, we'll always try to load "Template::Declare::TagSet::Foo::Bar". Does it sound okay?
I wonder if it would make sense to do
use Template::Declare::Tags 'HTML' => {
# package =>
'Template::Declare::TagSet::HTML', #implied
namespace => 'html' };
use Template::Declare::Tags 'foobar' => {
package => 'MyClass::Taglib::FooBarBaz', #explicit. overrides
'foobar'
namespace => 'html' };
?
What about: use Template::Declare::Tags 'HTML' => { namespace => 'html' }; # behind the scenes creates the html:: pseudopackage and imports Template::Declare::TagSet::HTML into itGood idea! I'd love to be more concise ;) Thanks, agentz _______________________________________________ jifty-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.jifty.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/jifty-devel
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ jifty-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.jifty.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/jifty-devel
