IT[X] fork, round 2

Greetings! Okay, here is my summary for the first round of discussion and some answers and clarifications. 1) I did NOT rewrite IT from scratch. It was mostly refactoring/PEARifying. IT was written before PEAR, so it did not strictly conform to standards. Yet, when you rename most of private functions and variables the patch against current sources becomes impractical. Public API stays the same, except for some changes described in the readme file! 2) I cannot prove that my sources are _always_ BC, it is ridiculous (especially when we have neither specification nor regression tests). That's why I posted my sources for review in the first place. Test 'em and tell me the results: http://158.250.10.119/pear/IT.phps http://158.250.10.119/pear/ITX.phps http://158.250.10.119/pear/IT[X]-fork.tar.gz 3) <!-- INCLUDE --> is in my fork now. Yet it does not mix with caching, just like callback functions. This is still somewhat a hack. It _can_ be redone in a much cleaner way that will allow caching of INCLUDE'd files as well, but this will take a non-insignificant amount of time to do. Christian, can you please test my classes now? 4) There were no other _concrete_ mentions of incompatibility. Here is one to whet your appetite: template: Bugwards compatibility test <!-- BEGIN outer_block --> {outer} <!-- BEGIN inner_block --> {outer}: {inner} <!-- END inner_block --> <!-- END outer_block --> code: $tpl->setVariable(array( 'inner' => 'Inner block variable', 'outer' => 'Outer block variable' )); $tpl->show(); Stock IT outputs Bugwards compatibility test Outer block variable : Inner block variable My version Bugwards compatibility test Outer block variable Outer block variable: Inner block variable Which one is broken is, of course, open for discussion...