Re: Review of mustache starts today.

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2023-02-18 13:38:57

Julien Blanc wrote:
> Coming to a conclusion, I think the following question should be
> answered:
> - what is the purpose of this library? Like in, “do we want a templating
> mechanism available, or do we want a strict mustache conforming
> implementation?”
> 
> I think the former would provide great value to boost. However, it would
> mean evaluating different template languages available, evaluating the use
> cases we want to support, and taking design decisions accordingly. Mustache
> can be a starting point, i don't know how badly specified are other template
> languages. On the other side, if what we want is the latter, then the roadmap
> would be different: fix the few design issues, add lambda support, write all
> missing documentation, and integrate to boost. But to me, it would look like a
> missed opportunity: contrary to what the mustache authors claims, mustache
> is *not* a templating system for anything. It has just far too many limitations
> and design failures that needs to be circumvented for this. Someone in a
> review looks forward using this library to produce xml or json only by
> changing the templates: I wish him good luck with that. My opinion on this is
> that's it's not reasonably doable with mustache...

At this juncture, the choice is between having Mustache in Boost and not
having Mustache in Boost. It's not between having Mustache and having
something else, because nothing else has been developed and proposed.

I should also note that having Mustache in Boost does not in any way preclude
having something else too, in the event that something else is developed
and proposed.