> > > Right, but are you saying that methods of objects (that will > > be processed inside a template) can't return an array, only a > > reference to an array? It works fine without using ".sort". > > Actually, what I wasn't saying and am now only presuming is that > TT happily promotes a single array to a scalar for your enjoyment > and that .sort isn't a scalar method. >
That makes sense. I bet you're right. I wonder if 'sort' could be a no-op method for a scalar to handle this case. > I'm pretty sure that in the long run you'll be happier if you just > pass references around. Only pretty sure, tho. > You're probably right. However, this means that there has to be some constraint on how classes are defined in order for them to be used from TT. I think one of the most powerful features of TT is that any old perl object can be queried from the template for display. Thanks for your response! regards, Brian > --mark >
