I'm +1 on the optional "with" parameter for {% include %}. -1 on
adding a new tag for this.
I also use {% with %}{% include %} a lot in templates but we should
follow with/blocktrans syntax for consistency:
{% include "part.html" with obj.title|capfirst as title and "large"
as main_class %}
A related proposal for the "with" tag: It'd be nice to support more
than one variable definition (as blocktrans does):
{% with "a" as var1 and "b" as var2 %}...{% endwith %}
The current solution is nesting "with" tags, which is not very pretty.
gonz.
2010/6/8 Marco Louro <mlo...@gmail.com>:
> Gabriel,
>
> I only made that decision because I didn't see the need to have whole
> context, and the only time I have needed it was because of the {%
> csrf_token %}. This is just my use-case, but I understand that other
> people might want to use it differently. I don't think it makes much
> of a difference, a clean context may avoid some collisions from time
> to time, but it may have bigger drawbacks for other people.
>
> Hi Jeliuc,
>
> No, I don't.
>
> On Jun 7, 7:59 pm, Gabriel Hurley <gab...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Extending the include tag seems like a fantastic idea! I end up
>> writing the {% with %}{% include %} combo all the time for my reusable
>> template snippets.
>>
>> However, I feel like selectively clearing the context inside a
>> template tag is asking for trouble and/or confusion. It also sounds
>> like it goes against Django's "templates require no knowledge of
>> programming" principle. While I can see how you might run into context
>> name collisions in a *very* large or complicated project, the right
>> solution there seems like it ought to be to clean up your context and/
>> or templates outside of the template itself... Even in projects with
>> dozens of installed apps (both my own and third-party ones mixed
>> together) I've never had that problem where two minutes of tweaking
>> couldn't fix it for good.
>>
>> I'm certainly not saying you don't have a use case for it, or that it
>> wouldn't be extremely helpful to you. Just that having a tag that
>> clears the context sounds fishy to me...
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> - Gabriel
>>
>> On Jun 7, 10:52 am, Marco Louro <mlo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > I'd prefer extending the {% include %} tag actually, but didn't of
>> > that in the first place.
[...]
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to django-develop...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en.
