Support compatible deltemplates with different optional arguments about closure-templates HOT 7 CLOSED

It seems to me that a more logical way to write this would be to have a count that both templates would use. In the "dime" variant, the count is of dimes, whereas the "nickel" variant count would refer to nickels. I believe it is not allowed like that, since we don't know at compile time which delegate we would use, so any delegate would need to support all possible parameters.

from closure-templates.

it's a toy example, don't be silly.

all delegates do support all possible parameters. they just ignore some of those parameters. I shouldn't have to declare that I'm ignoring a parameter.

from closure-templates.

Of course it is a toy example, but it does not demonstrate any reason to desire that behavior. These templates are very strict about requiring parameters, and using the required parameters. It blows up at compile time if the required parameter is not there. If you have several options for templates to choose, how can soy decide whether or not the specific parameter is required? In my eyes, it is a bit like overloading methods in Java. In order to overload, it is necessary to match signatures exactly.

from closure-templates.

"It blows up at compile time if the required parameter is not there." - Just for the record, this is simply not true for deltemplates.

shrug, if the team feels that this warning adds value, that's fine. We've already forked our version of closure-templates to remove this warning.

from closure-templates.

Correct, sorry I did not explain my thinking very well on that. My point was that given the strictness of the regular template, keeping in line with that with the deltemplate makes sense.

Now, given that your team feels the warnings are extraneous, and have already disabled them, this starts to make sense. Perhaps it would be beneficial to define a strict mode, in which all of these are enforced, whereas if disabled, it wouldn't try to enforce all these rules. Thanks for that clarification.

from closure-templates.

@nicks This seems like a pretty reasonable change, and it seems unlikely to cause much (any?) breakage in our existing templates. Can you send a PR? (Looks like it's been a while since you merged Medium's fork.)

from closure-templates.

sure, i'll try to put a PR together soon.

from closure-templates.