Re: TT's support for methods and complex structures. Why not?
Mark Stosberg <mark-WmyhgDpj2fCHT8/[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lang.perl.modules.html-template |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 2005-07-18, Mark Stosberg <mark-WmyhgDpj2fCHT8/[email protected]> wrote: > >> I really dislike systems that try to collapse hash dereferences and >> method calls into a single syntax. Petal does this and it drives me >> nuts - I can never figure out what I'm looking at from the template. >> And it does matter because methods may have side-effects and hash >> derefs don't. > > I can see your point here. Should we bring back the arrow for methods? > That seems to be the most obvious (Until Perl6 gets here). > > Or we could keep the dot notation because that's where Perl6 is going, > and bring back the bracket notation for hashes. I'm thought more about this. The arrow should be avoided because ">" is not valid HTML. More significantly, I've come back to advocating the dot notation for both because from the user's perspective it's an implementation detail. As a programmer, I think I can quickly check the top level name to see what's going on. Already we have to look at $value and guess whether it's a string, an arrayref or a hashref. Mark -- http://mark.stosberg.com/ ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles, informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7477&alloc_id=16492&op=click