On Dec 1, 2009, at 12:16 PM, Jesse Vincent wrote:
> I don't have a good answer for that, short of "declaration order" or
> some similar insanity. Your argument was pushing me toward "no names"
> rather than "multiple per package and level"
Me too.
>> I don't care if they have names, frankly. So maybe the syntax could just be:
>>
>> wrapper '/' => sub { };
>
> I wonder if making it imperative makes sense? wrap instead of wrapper.
>
> wrap '/' => sub { };
Well, none of the other keywords are imperative. It's `template`, not
`create_template`. Similarly for language keywords for declaring things (`sub`,
`method`, `class`, etc.).
> When we're doing template resolution, "/" still means at the root, not "the
> current package", right?
Correct.
> That would lead me to want to use relative
> pathing syntax here. '.' or './' or _something_, since '/' means something
> fairly specific already.
That would be allowable, yes.
> Really, when we start specifying paths and subpaths, for these wrappers
> to wrap, I start reaching for a path based dispatcher with globbing
> and/or regexes, ala Path::Dispatcher or Jifty::Dispatcher, but I know
> that's not the hammer you're looking for. Maybe we really do just want
> one wrapper per package scope.
Things don't resolve that way, really. Templates already resolve to paths; so
should wrappers.
Best,
David
_______________________________________________
jifty-devel mailing list
jifty-devel@lists.jifty.org
http://lists.jifty.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/jifty-devel
