[theme-reviewers] Question about child theming

[Josh Pollock]

@chip- That's a reasonable argument that I buy in the sense that not all
functions should be pluggable. The fact that I can bust a parent theme with
a messed up function override in the child theme is my problem as a
developer though.


On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 4:35 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:

> That's a development decision. Not all functions are intended to be
> Pluggable, and wholesale overriding of some functions would cause the Theme
> to break entirely.
>
> Making functions Pluggable isn't recommended, much less best-practice.
> (Notice that core is moving away from Pluggable functions as well.) It's
> strictly the purview of the developer to determine whether functions should
> be Pluggable or to have their output filterable.
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Josh Pollock <jpollock412 at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>> Why don't we require that all functions be wrapped in if ( !
>> function_exists( 'function_name') ) : wrappers? It seems to me like
>> requiring this would make child themeing easier as a all functions from a
>> parent theme could be easily over ridden from a child theme. Yes, I realize
>> you can use remove_action and remove_filter but what about functions not
>> hooked to filters or actions?
>>
>> I'm wondering if there is a reason for this or if my logic is flawed.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Josh
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20131222/a97ce18f/attachment.html>