BTW do you have benchmark results, to compare Stan against say Kid or Cheetah ?
Kid is excellent for complex or document-structure-aware pages (py:match and alike) but often overkill for simple templates. I would happily use TurboStan from now for less complex templates if the rendering speed is really here (which I suspect because the template is a python DOM by itself) And yes, caching would be great _with_docs_ I've always been reluctant to use caching with Cheetah because when I started with it the docs were sparse, and now I can't detach from my bad habits :-/ Regards. Cliff Wells wrote: > > Olivier Favre-Simon wrote: >> I somehow hacked a bit on extending Buffet with Stan but it choked on a >> eval() call (seems eval() doesn't work the same inside a simple def >> method as inside a class method...) >> > Olivier, > > Was this breakage in TurboStan or Buffet? TurboStan uses eval() but > it should be self-contained (it's only used to evaluate the Stan > expression, and then within its own namespace). > > If you do use TurboStan with Buffet/CP, I'd like to hear about your > experiences and any issues you may run into. I'd also be interested > in feedback and suggestions/criticisms from people actually using Stan > to help steer development on it. Some of the things I'm going to be > considering next are caching of compiled templates, using widgets from > Stan, and maybe even implementing a widget or two in Stan, just as a > proof-of-concept if nothing else. > > Cliff > > >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
