> Obviously we don't want to go changing the order of the first two > parameters because it'll break existing code. But tagging the min > parameter on the end feels pretty wrong too. It's not very intuitive > or obvious as to why it's that way (other than "backwards compatibility").
Yup, I agree > So I think I'll have to pass on the patch this time, but keep the basic > idea. Thank you for your efforts, all the same. makes sense thanks clint _______________________________________________ templates mailing list [email protected] http://lists.template-toolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/templates
