* Terrence Brannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-02-27 19:55]: >I don't understand what excites people about that approach.
Writing the output directly in its final form instead of writing code that generates that output. In my experience, output tends to be 97% static stuff, 2.5% very simple logic, and 0.5% really hairy data munging. I don’t want to write code to output those 97% static strings. I just want to write them down and be done. (Likewise, I don’t want to wrestle a crippled mini language for those hairy 0.5%. I just want to use Perl and be done.) >It sounds like the pre-compilation and caching of templates >won't be a part of your system? Caching, no, compilation, yes. As I said, templates will behave just like classes written in Perl. >Here is a cute way to do streaming template expansion for Perl >and HTML: http://homepage.mac.com/pauljlucas/software/html_tree/ Yeah, I saw that long ago. Quite a similar approach to TAL/Petal, Kid, my Kid port, and doubtless many others, in terms of template syntax. I know nothing about how it generates output, though. >Is this thing written? Can we try it out? Partially; and, not yet. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
