"Cory Trese" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Our development group has fastidiously avoided the use of "include".
Any particular reason? I'm curious.
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by: viaVerio will pay you up to
$1,000 for every account th
> There's no need for new syntax, just create a separate HTML::Template
> object for the reusable include and populate it separately. You can do
> this in a separate module for added security. Then, when you're ready to
> fill in the include do:
>
> $main_template->param(inner_template => $inne
Cees Hek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I like this idea, although I have a suggestion for handling this in
> a slightly different manner. By using the LOOP construct to
> simulate namespaces, your namespace could get polluted if using
> global_vars=1.
Polluted -- how? You mean by "seeing" upst
On Tue, 15 Oct 2002, Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
> A colleague asked an interesting question about tmpl_includes. The
> point was, how do I make an include reusable from multiple pages? I
> answered that you could simply write a function that populated the
> template variables that the include require
I like this idea, although I have a suggestion for handling this in a slightly
different manner. By using the LOOP construct to simulate namespaces, your
namespace could get polluted if using global_vars=1. That might be a desirable
benefit in some situations, but most likely it will not be de
Paul Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why not just add a "namespace" to the variables then?
Because I might not have control over what variable names the include
template chooses for itself. If it plays by the book, everything is
fine. If not, I will inadvertently clobber its variables with
