The main problem with doing anything like this is that it's backwards incompatible. Since it's a reasonably small issue, it's easy to work around and we don't want to introduce new syntax for it, there really isn't much choice but to leave it as it is, regardless of what the right behavior is. I don't remember exactly what went into making the decision to do it the way we do now; it would definitely be a performance hit to do it the other way, and there are certainly reasons to think that it would be more surprising, given that every other value is converted with to_s.
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 7:54 AM, Katherine Giron Pe <[email protected]>wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 10:16 PM, Norman Clarke <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> At least in my implementation of Haml in Lua, the precompiler would >> have to wrap each script tag in a conditional to be evaluated by the >> renderer, and output nothing if the content is nil. In other words, >> doable but a pain in the butt for what IMHO is potentially confusing >> functionality. >> >> Also the way Haml is now, if you don't want the tag you can just add a >> conditional. The feature that's being described would leave you with >> no way to always get the tag if that's what you want, unless a config >> option is added. >> >> I think you guys made the right choice. >> > > Agree. Separation of concerns. > > > -- > ----- > BridgeUtopia Web > http://blog.bridgeutopiaweb.com > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
