Re: [Templates] TT in callback

>I seem to find reasons to use INCLUDE a little more frequently. For

Jason Gottshall wrote:

>I seem to find reasons to use INCLUDE a little more frequently. For
>example, if I use PROCESS in this situation, my default variable is
>useless:
>
>bar.tt:
>=======
>First: [% PROCESS foo.tt size = 3 %]
>Second: [% PROCESS foo.tt size = 12 %]
>Third: [% PROCESS foo.tt %]
>  
>

Actually, not to turn this (too much) into a feature request for TT3, 
but I'd like to see just the named variables following a PROCESS get 
localized. Rather than a deep copy, it could do a shallow copy and just 
replace the named items or actually do a local on just those portions of 
the stash. In my defense, suggesting this makes my skin crawl, but it 
does seem like a "GoodThing(tm)" and least surprising.

In effect, what we have going on above is just [% SET size=4; PROCESS 
foo.tt %] written backwards and that we already know how to do. :)

        -- 
        Mark D. Mills
Xodiax (a peak 10 company)
http://www.xodiax.com/
http://www.peak10.com/

_______________________________________________
templates mailing list
templates@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
http://lists.template-toolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/templates