Re^2: Push style templating systems

[metaperl]

you list only StringTemplate but not HTML::Template. Why?

I guess because HTML::Template::Expr raises the entanglement index. But pure HTML::Template is definitely push-style. Added.

Or put the question the other way round (assuming that Rhandom is right, that the point of your list, at least with the Perl part is "no mini-language")

When I opened this mode, I stated my purpose. It was to record push-style systems. I don't know why you would figure that Rhandom would know more about my purposes than the ones I stated.

Why do you endorse/mention/include StringTemplate, though it has a mini-language?

Because it meets the criteria for strict separation... I'm starting to see that push-style is not what he used as a term. He did use pull-style when referring to tt/mason-esque systems, but he never used to the term pull style to refer to systems like XMLC, etc.

[pKai]

Thanks for clearing that up, at least somewhat ;-)

Citing Terence Parr

The trick is to provide sufficient power in a template engine without providing constructs that allow separation violation.

It is my understanding that he shows that "push" (his Definition 8) is sufficiently strict to ensure separation. But for the template engine user's convenience you can add things while separation is still enforced.

He designed StringTemplate accordingly, but StringTemplate isn't pure-push then, isn't it?

[metaperl]

He designed StringTemplate accordingly, but StringTemplate isn't pure-push then, isn't it?

I don't know what pure push is. If I had to guess, I would say that the 5 rules implied by strict separation, listed after Definition 7, define pure push. And as far as I can see, StringTemplate doesnt break any of those rules.

I know Seamstress doesnt.

[metaperl]

Actually he does use the term "push strategy" in Definition 8 in Section 7.1