Andy Wardley wrote: > > Tim Sweetman wrote: > > As I understand it, _the_ key difference between H::T and the other > > "templating" systems available, is flow of control and data. > > No, one of the key difference is that H::T *enforces* that model. > With TT (and others) it's optional.
Whatever I've seen of TT makes it look very like a scripting language. Even when using it very strictly, you might well be doing things like this: [% foo.bar %] ... which, should foo have been an object, results in ->bar being called (flow of control going back to the template). Object instances going to the wrong place can ruin your whole day, viz. Q: How many OO Perl programmers does it take to change a light bulb? A: Foo::Bar=HASH(0x804e054) It may well be that H::T implements a tiny subset of what TT does, which sounds like an argument in favour of using TT, perhaps with a Paranoid::TemplateToolkit wrapper to suit (main worry here being other programmers extemporising on large projects, with unpredictable consequences). Darn, I'm turning into a TT advocate. Cheers -- Tim Sweetman | http://www.thebunker.net/ A L Digital | "*squeak*" --- Kate Bush, "Withering Hertz"
