On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 01:37:12PM -0700, David E. Wheeler wrote: > On Oct 13, 2009, at 11:36 AM, Shawn M Moore wrote: > > > I just want to point out that this is an important use case for us. We > > do use the object-oriented features of Template::Declare and it is > > important that they continue to work. > > Thanks Shawn. Based on your testing results, I changed things around. > The behavior of `alias` is now as it was before, and > `import_templates` is different.
Aye, cool. :) > > As I understand it, you have since fixed this, but I felt you > > deserved a > > good explanation as to why we pass in the particular class we do. > > Yes, I appreciate it. > > Before we decided to merge this stuff into trunk there were two things > I wanted to get nailed down: > > * Improved documentation for this stuff. I'm now working on this and > should commit it later today. Yay! > * Discuss if the `alias` behavior really *is* what we want. I ask > because, in a real mixin system, the invocant passed to a mixed-in > method would be an object of the class into which it's mixed, not the > class from which it's mixed. Based on your comments here, I think that > the answer is yes, but I did want to reality-check it. Sound about > right? Perhaps mixin is the wrong metaphor for alias. I think delegation is a better metaphor, since we really need the original class passed to the aliased templates. See also http://search.cpan.org/~drolsky/Moose-0.92/lib/Moose/Manual/Delegation.pod for a definition of delegation and why it's good. There's a place for the mixin metaphor, maybe that can be "import", or something new. > Thanks, > > David Shawn _______________________________________________ jifty-devel mailing list jifty-devel@lists.jifty.org http://lists.jifty.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/jifty-devel
