Saturday, February 17, 2018, 9:36:48 AM, Taher Alkhateeb wrote: > Wrong link, sorry, correcting. > > http://jinja.pocoo.org/docs/2.10/templates/#include
Just be sure it's clear, we also have an ignore_missing option (in the released versions). But it's often not very useful if you can't do some action in case the template is missing. Jinja also allows you to specify a list of template names instead of just one, and uses that as a fallback list. That's something I have considered as well, and I believe it covers most use-cases for the proposed feature. However, it falls into the same mistake as ingnore_missing, as it focuses on a concrete use-case while missing another (when you have to do something before the template if it exists). I prefer less but more generic devices. With that could have avoid adding ignore_missing as well. > On Feb 17, 2018 11:34 AM, "Taher Alkhateeb" <slidingfilame...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> For a point of comparison, the python jinja2 template engine (widely used) >> has an "include" directive that has an attribute named "ignore missing" >> [1]. I also remember seeing similar behavior in other engines. >> >> So I guess perhaps from a usability point of view this seems to be a >> desired feature by users. However, I don't know what the impact in terms of >> complexity would reflect in the code base. >> >> http://jinja.pocoo.org/docs/2.10/templates/#list-of-global-functions >> >> On Feb 17, 2018 11:18 AM, "Jacopo Cappellato" <jacopo.cappell...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 8:04 AM, Daniel Dekany <ddek...@apache.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>> > Some more opinions guys? Especially as we got one opinion against the >>> > feature. >>> > >>> >>> Just to clarify my opinion: I am not against this feature; I simply don't >>> consider it a must since there are some workaround to get a similar >>> behavior. But if it will be implemented I will be happy too. >>> >>> Jacopo >>> >> -- Thanks, Daniel Dekany
