On Oct 6, 2009, at 10:05 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote: >> In imported templates, the invocant is an object blessed into the >> class into which the templates were imported. >> >> In aliased templates, the invocant is an object blessed into the >> class >> from which the templates were aliased. > > Turns out that in neither case is an object passed. It looks like an > object is *never* passed. It's a class name. This, to me, makes the > distinction even less important.
It turns out that I was wrong to start with. The truth is that the invocant is always the class from which the template was imported/ aliased. The only subtlety is when mixing in or aliasing a subclass of templates: * When importing a subclass of templates, the invocant is always the class in which each template was defined. * When aliasing a subclass of templates, the invocant is always the subclass, regardless of whether a particular template was defined in the subclass or a parent. This is a pretty minor difference, but I've updated the tests in the mixmaster branch to confirm this (the tests were ambiguous before). Is there any reason for this inconsistency, does any code rely on it, or was it just an oversight of the implementation? Best, David _______________________________________________ jifty-devel mailing list jifty-devel@lists.jifty.org http://lists.jifty.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/jifty-devel
