Re: Modifiers and variables

On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 09:42:48AM +0100, Jean-Michel Hiver wrote:
> How do you mean? When you write a modifier, you have access to the raw 
> string that comes after the modifier. What you do with that string is up 
> to you.

Exactly, which is where the problem lies. If each modifier author is
writing custom code to break up the string, there is no consistency in
Petal's modifiers.


> Interesting, maybe this behavior could be implemented in an abstract 
> modifier which could be subclassed at will.

I'm not sure that I follow what you mean by an abstract modifier. Would
my custom modifier inherit from that? If so, this is essentially what
Petal::Utils is doing now. I was hoping to have a standard method for
extracting the arguments from the string but migrating the Plugin
modifier architecture from Petal::Utils into Petal would be great (I
know Steve would be all for this).


> >I like this as it makes it really easy to pass in plain text without
> >having to use the string: modifier. However, I'm not sure whether this
> >is considered TAL compliant. What are your thoughts? I've included the
> >subroutine at the end.
> 
> Well, it's not TALES (TAL Expression Syntax) compliant. However in my 
> view what's inside the TAL attributes doesn't really matter since it's 
> pretty much application-dependant anyway.
> 
> Petal has never been TALES compliant since it lets you pass argument to 
> methods, which in my knowledge is not supported by TALES.

That's what I was wondering. Since we're out on a limb, I guess we can
make up anything we want. I'm going to add the proposed functionality to
Petal::Utils::fetch_arg. Perhaps it can eventually be merged into Petal.


Thanks,
William

-- 
Knowmad Services Inc.
http://www.knowmad.com