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?
>
> What about:
>
>
> use Template::Declare::Tags 'HTML' => { namespace => 'html' }; #
> behind the scenes creates the html:: pseudopackage and imports
> Template::Declare::TagSet::HTML into it
>
Good 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
