Todd Freeman wrote:
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 10:45:38AM -0500, Sean T Allen wrote:
Todd Freeman wrote:
Can't speak for the others... but personally I would love to be able to do
just that... being able to take one data set and do
$template->process('pdf');
$templ
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 10:45:38AM -0500, Sean T Allen wrote:
> Todd Freeman wrote:
>
> >Can't speak for the others... but personally I would love to be able to do
> >just that... being able to take one data set and do
> >
> >$template->process('pdf');
> >$template->process('html');
> >$template
Perrin Harkins wrote:
On Tue, 2005-01-04 at 00:14 +, Tony Bowden wrote:
On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 06:21:14PM -0500, Perrin Harkins wrote:
I structure my web applications so that common code can be added to all
requests in a central place (some kind of common "setup" hook). I
usually put
Simon Matthews wrote:
:
:
[a buncha cool stuff]
:
:
Well, I was going to jump in and offer all my opinions, but Simon just
beat me to it. Everything he said, I agree with.
I want localization by default, especially if the "performance penalty"
is on the same order as making copies of subroutine
Andy Wardley wrote:
Rather than copying the entire variable stash each time we need to
create a localised variable scope (e.g. INCLUDE), TT3 creates a new,
empty variable stash with a parent link pointing upwards to the stash
of the calling context.
When a variable is first accessed, the stas
On Fri, 2005-01-07 at 16:53 +, Simon Matthews wrote:
> I still think that changing the default behaviour will cause untold
> mayhem for the vast number of people who have been using INCLUDE in
> the past.
I seriously doubt that, since only people who set variables in their
templates AND step o
Title: RE: [Templates] TT in callback
> -Original Message-
> I'm not sure I'm following, but the difference between
> INCLUDE and PROCESS is that INCLUDE prevents the specific
> side-effect of changing data in the stash and is therefore
> slower. If you don't need to prevent that s
On Fri, 2005-01-07 at 08:11 -0800, Bill Moseley wrote:
> Is the issue about side-effects? My data comes in from a $t->process
> hash or from a single template where I "PROCESS defaultvars.tt" in a
> common wrapper or PRE_PROCESS. It's rare that I PROCESS a template
> for side-effect of setting so
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 09:02:58AM -0500, Perrin Harkins wrote:
> I think people do not read the whole doc (they would not be missing the
> localisation in INCLUDE if they did) but rather go looking for something
> called "include" and stop when they find it.
Actually, I started out using PROCESS
Todd Freeman wrote:
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 11:41:34AM -0500, Thomas, Mark - BLS CTR wrote:
I use both TT and Spreadsheet::WriteExcel, yet I'm not sure what you're
trying to accomplish. Why are you trying to combine the two? Are you trying
to create Excel templates with embedded TT
On Fri, 2005-01-07 at 10:39 +, Harry Jackson wrote:
> Would you then alias INCLUDE to PROCESS?
Yes.
> You know a lot more about the work involved than me but for backwards
> compatibility but would it not be easier to make INCLUDE_FAST an alias
> to PROCESS.
I think people do not read the
Perrin Harkins wrote:
On Thu, 2005-01-06 at 11:08 +, Andy Wardley wrote:
I must admit it worries me slightly that I come down 90% in favour of one
approach and you're swung 99.9% the other way. Assuming the efficiency
problem goes away in TT3, is your position that non-localising is the
corr
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 03:50:33PM +, Andy Wardley wrote:
> But aside from that, do I take it you're also in favour of the "all variables
> are global unless explicitly scoped local" approach?
I'm not sure. Probably not. The opposite sounds better to me, but I
don't really see all the issues
13 matches
Mail list logo
