[jifty-devel] RFC: Improved Template::Declare Wrappers

[David E. Wheeler]

On Dec 1, 2009, at 12:16 PM, Jesse Vincent wrote:

> I don't have a good answer for that, short of "declaration order" or
> some similar insanity. Your argument was pushing me toward "no names"
> rather than "multiple per package and level"

Me too.

>> I don't care if they have names, frankly. So maybe the syntax could just be:
>> 
>>    wrapper '/' => sub { };
> 
> I wonder if making it imperative makes sense? wrap instead of wrapper.
> 
>    wrap '/' => sub { };

Well, none of the other keywords are imperative. It's `template`, not `create_template`. Similarly for language keywords for declaring things (`sub`, `method`, `class`, etc.).

> When we're doing template resolution, "/" still means at the root, not "the
> current package", right?

Correct.

> That would lead me to want to use relative
> pathing syntax here.  '.' or './' or _something_, since '/' means something 
> fairly specific already.

That would be allowable, yes.

> Really, when we start specifying paths and subpaths, for these wrappers
> to wrap, I start reaching for a path based dispatcher with globbing
> and/or regexes, ala Path::Dispatcher or Jifty::Dispatcher, but I know
> that's not the hammer you're looking for. Maybe we really do just want
> one wrapper per package scope.

Things don't resolve that way, really. Templates already resolve to paths; so should wrappers.

Best,

David