On 13 feb, 18:48, Nathan Weizenbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks for the patches, but Google Groups does mangle stuff like this. > Could you pastie them?
http://pastie.caboo.se/151641 And follow-up: http://pastie.caboo.se/151642 > As for :tabs vs :ugly, I definitely want an :ugly flag to be there > because there will be more optimizations we can do that don't > necessarily involve tabs. Also, I'm not sure how much of a performance > hit "" + bigstring incurs over just bigstring. I'll profile it some when > I can apply the patches. Please do review them carefully before applying though; remember I'm not that familiar with the Haml codebase at this stage. I've included tests, but there may be scenarios unknown to me in which this breaks. > Finally, could you make the option in the second patch :output_tabs to > avoid confusion? Yep, that's done. Those two patches effectively replace the original patch that I sent. ":ugly" is now built on top of ":output_tab", which I think is much cleaner. Later on real optimization can be rolled in to ":ugly". Cheers, Wincent --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
