IMHO nothing wrong with this HAML :
- animal = "tauren"
%p
== I like <strong>#{animal}</strong>!
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 5:09 AM, Hampton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, first off. I think this is a pretty decent syntax.
>
> But, mostly, I'm worried about walking down the road of supporting inline
> formatting. It feels like this syntax breaks a couple of the core mental
> conventions of Haml (one line, one line)... and loses the focus on "Haml is
> for structure" which has been a guiding principle since the beginning.
>
> To put it this way, this is a workably syntax, but it adds complexity and
> doesn't solve for every case of inline formatting. And, I'm concerned that
> walking down that line is getting into the territory of the two primary
> inline formatting languages. Both of those are *more* complex than Haml
> because the *problem* is complicated. This syntax doesn't solve their
> problem but would be an admission that we are *trying* to solve that problem
> with Haml.
>
> I want more input though. So please, argue back.
>
> -hampton.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 12:28 PM, Hendrik Mans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > I love HAML. But yesterday I had one of "those" moments where, after
> > an ugly amount of succeed "!" do / = "#{whatever}!" / == #{whataver}!
> > hackery, I was a bit too close to reverting to ERB. Luckily, Nathan
> > spotted my whining on Twitter and quickly helped restore my
> > faith. ;-) Being able to use #{} style variable substitution
> > within :markdown etc. helpers really helps a lot.
> >
> > During that little episode I also had an idea for a new HAML syntax
> > that might help improve the situation even more. Check it out:
> >
> > http://pastie.caboo.se/183851
> >
> > Basically, the idea is to introduce parentheses (or some other kind of
> > delimiter) to wrap the expression that's intended to be contained in
> > the parent tag, with everything following the parentheses being
> > outside the tag. I haven't had a look at how HAML works yet, but I
> > imagine it might not be too hard to implement -- might give it a try
> > at some point (unless one of you is faster).
> >
> > I believe it should work fine with all existing denominators,
> > including ==, without breaking backwards compatibility.
> >
> > Your thoughts?
> >
> > - Hendrik
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
