Thanks for the link to the paper. I found it interesting. I also found it somewhat biased and amusing.I am grateful for the part just before Section 7.1 where he lists the 5 things that determine whether a template system is push-style or pull-style. I think you would agree that only Seamstress is push-style. Everything else on CPAN (including Petal) and HTML_Tree (not on CPAN) is pull-style.
I found it amusing because section 7.1 is labeled "Pull Strategy Violates Separation" - but he never treats the topic of whether "Push Strategy Violates separation."I dont think it can. Can you provide an example of where it does? You only have meld3, Seamstress and XMLC and StringTemplate to pick on, because those the only push-style templating systems out there.
| I have beheld the tarball of 22.1 on ftp.gnu.org with my own eyes. How can you say that there is no God in the Church of Emacs? -- David Kastrup |
|
| Enforce strict model-view separation in template engines via HTML::Seamstress | The car is in the cdr, not the cdr in the car |
In reply to Push templating strategy cannot violate separation
by metaperl
in thread RFC - Template::Empty
by redhotpenguin
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |