> I also like the string library for certain pedagogical reasons, but I don't > think the Templates are compelling when you can do essentially the same thing > with string formatting. Is the $ notation that much of a "win?" > > --John >
Yeah I've asked myself the same question. It's a little less syntax, plus I just like talking about this "Template object" as a "thing". I compare it to the legal concept of "boilerplate" and all the fill-in-the-blanks stuff they get to do in school (kids are used to boilerplates -- what most tests are no? -- certainly we adults face templates a lot, try to squeeze into 'em). Template = Form. Backend = database (more like what goes in the dictionary -- used to populate the fields/columns as rows/records). I talk a lot about real world stuff like that. The lesson is a "cave painting" i.e. a primitive yet faithful rendition of something more complicated (perhaps unnecessarily complicated for our purposes). But I could see switching to %(dict_key)s syntax somewhere along the way. I like Template though and don't think the string module should go away. Rather it should fill with non- redundant basic utilities (like Template). Kirby _______________________________________________ Edu-sig mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-sig
