I agree, Alistair.
I like my syntax.
We are going with the
== These two lines do the same thing! #{Time.now}
= "These two lines do the same thing #{Time.now}"
This will be added to trunk soon.
-hampton.
On 2/10/07, alistairholt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Why do replies never seem to get posted?.. anyway.. sorry if this is a
> double post.
>
> I really like the idea of using:
>
> == Hello #{momma}
>
> This has been the biggest problem I've faced since becoming a Haml
> user and this would be a very nice solution.
>
> On Feb 8, 7:33 pm, Hampton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Eh, we probably couldn't just "run it through" erb every time. That
> > could have some terrible consequences with both security and
> > performance. We'd have to compound our processing with the equal
> > amount of processing for erb.
> >
> > Also, I don't want it parsing an output. What if a user generated bit
> > had a <% `rm -rf \*` %> ont it? Also, what about the order of
> > execution? I mean, if I do...
> >
> > <%= @start %>
> > - @start = "hello"
> > = @start
> > - @start = "boo"
> >
> > and you might get
> >
> > boo
> > hello
> >
> > as your output, because erb might be run after. Or, if it was before,
> > you might have side-effects where the <% is run first and can modify
> > things in a different order than the Haml interpreting. And, if you
> > did them at the same time, then ERB would be *slow*. You'd have to
> > have it "start-up" the render engine for every line! Which, is NOT
> > what we want.
> >
> > If anything, I would have Haml precompile the <%= blah %> into the
> > buffer as a "marked" section of needing printing.
> >
> > So, user-data is not parsed for <%= %>. And, it would only happen
> > once... at precompile. And it would only happen on some lines.
> >
> > Heck, maybe we'd even use a marker.
> >
> > == Hello <%= momma %>
> >
> > Or do.
> >
> > == Hello #{momma}
> >
> > Yeah, actually, I kind of like that last one. Its kind of odd and not
> > *everyone* would use it. However, it would be good to have in the
> > Haml-toolkit. That would be *SUPER* easy to implement. Simply treat it
> > like a
> >
> > = "Hello #{momma}"
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > -hampton.
> >
> > On 2/8/07, Jeffrey Hardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On 8-Feb-07, at 1:45 PM, Hampton wrote:
> > > > Well, we *COULD* do the erb syntax.
> >
> > > > #tag
> > > > fix the <%= thing.name %> boyyyeeee!
> >
> > > I'm thinking the erb syntax is a good idea. Its function is obvious,
> > > which I like. (Everybody knows how erb works). Erb also has the
> > > advantage of being easier to implement; since you can just run the
> > > pre-compiled template through erb, there's no need to write your own
> > > parser.
> >
> > > /Jeff
>
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Haml" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/haml?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
