> I don't think it has anything to do with skill or their ability to pick
> it up and get use to it over time. You can say that about any syntax
> (good or bad). My main point i guess was that if someone saw django
> template at a glance (which is usually how I evaluate things initially)
> the more familiar it seems the more chance of me trying it out because I
> don't have to reconfigure my brain too much. You name it and most
> popular templating solutions use this syntax, which means more designers
> as well are also familiar with ${} syntax.
>
> >dollar-sign based syntax (which in turn feels alien and Perl-ish to
> >me).
This really hits the nail on the head for me. Variables are of the
form: 'SomeVariable' in Python, not '$SomeVariable' like Perl, PHP
ect. So why should a template language developed in and used with
Python be any different? Sure, when I first came to python, variable
names that looked like function names etc was a little difficult to
wrap my head around, but once I understood why; it was no problem
(overly simplified reason: everything is an object so we don't need to
differentiate). Adding $ back in for variables in the templates just
throws the whole "python way" out the window and adds unnecessary
confusion to those familiar with python syntax (since the brain
reconfiguration (as you put it) is happening anyway, it might as well
be consistent). In other words, your request will get much resistance
from most every python programmer out there. Although, I suppose if
enough (read: alot) people requested it, some might consider it as an
alternate secondary syntax. Just my 2cents (which could be way off).-- ---- Waylan Limberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
