[ic] include interpolation
peter at pajamian.dhs.org
Mon Dec 6 18:55:37 UTC 2010
On 07/12/10 02:40, Paul Jordan wrote:
> In line with my last barrage of emails regarding interpolation... Can
> someone say if it is possible that the interpolation setting (while
> correct in the code) may have been showing as opposite in the docs?
> That would be backwards correct?
> I'm interested in knowing about the rest of the docs because, while
> after discussing it on list I came to find out that I understood things
> to operate slightly differently (technically), but in practice would
> have vivified in line.
> I believe I understood things to operate differently because I
> explicitly remember seeing "interpolate" listed as "yes" almost every
> single time I looked a the docs (circa 2001 - 2003) - and now as you
> know, I am finding the opposite showing in the docs.
> I guess I am really wondering if I am losing my mind - only because the
> memories of seeing that are so vivid... almost as vivid as when I
> travelled to Mars with my Velluptian space wife.
[include] is a weird one. It does interpolate its output, but it does
so explicitly with:
my $out = Vend::Interpolate::interpolate_html(
So technically the tag does not have the interpolate setting turned on,
but practically speaking it does interpolate the output. It could be
correct to write the docs either way and the RTFM docs do in fact say
"yes" for the interpolate attribute.
Why it does it this way rather than setting the Interpolate attribute is
beyond me. At a guess the tag was originally written before the
interpolate attribute came about, but probably only Mike knows for sure.
More information about the interchange-users