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.