note Rhandom It seems that there is always a knee-jerk reaction to not having control flow in your HTML - and sometimes rightfully so. I very often see posters decrying systems such as [cpan://Template::Toolkit] because it has its own language - which it does - which may or may not be a problem. But that is a separate issue from that introduced by the Tal, Seamstress, and now the "Empty" concept. <br><br> The problem introduced by Tal, Seamstress, this new "Empty", and sometimes even HTML::Template with its "LOOP" construct - is that the Perl code has to know too much about the template. <br><br> Obviously the Perl code has to know which variables the template is going to need. However the Tal and Seamstress models go a little further - the Perl code for these has to know a little (sometimes a lot) about how the template is going to present the data. We've made sure the logic is out of the presentation layer - but now we've made the code layer manipulate the presentation layer. I think this is worse than having control flow in the template. <br><br> The nice thing about template systems with at least a minimal amount of language capability (such as Template::Toolkit) is that my Perl layer can generate data and pass it to the presentation layer. The presentation layer is then free to manipulate the data into a form suitable for presentation. <br><br> In the end, it really is developer preference. But for myself I've found that Template::Toolkit syntax and particularly [cpan://Template::Alloy] (which I authored) if used properly are the perfect separation between model and view. And it is the perfect separation from both directions. <br><br> <!-- Node text goes above. Div tags should contain sig only --> <div class="pmsig"><div class="pmsig-1598"> <font size=1>my @a=qw(random brilliant braindead); print $a&#91;rand(@a)];</font> </div></div> 669956 669956