> So I installed and compared. I preferred the syntax of Mason, the
> flexible way to build components, the caching ... it have to be
> said here that I choose Mason ...
I agree, the caching is very good and one gets up and running in no
time with Mason. However, I find it imposes too much of a coding style
to the programmer : for example, all pages are evaluated inside the
same package and thus one cannot define two "normal" subroutines with
the same name in two different pages.
--
<< Tout n'y est pas parfait, mais on y honore certainement les jardiniers >>
Dominique Quatravaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
