I think your previous :ugly patch was better - although this one achieves similar output, there doesn't appear to be any gain in efficiency. Also, I'm not sure yet that I want :output_tabs configuration to be available, so I'd rather not have :ugly tied to it just yet.
- Nathan Wincent Colaiuta wrote: > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
