El 6/3/2008, a las 21:37, pimpmaster escribió: >> This seems less like magic to me, and more like enforcing best >> practices. IMO, it fits in naturally. > > Agreed 1,000% > > Haml is supposed to enforce valid HTML.. this just takes things a bit > further. > > I said it before and I'll say it again: > > +1 !!!
It's probably useless to protest, seeing as there is such overwhelming enthusiasm for this idea, but I'm actually opposed to it. I don't like the way it takes a piece of syntax and changes what it means depending on its context. In a markup language, I think any given token should always mean the same thing, as it makes it easier to teach, easier to write (because you don't have to think ask yourself, "What will this syntax produce in this context?") and easier to read (for exactly the same reason). It just doesn't seem worth it for the benefit (a few saved keystrokes). 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
