Totally agree with svoop. Specifying attributes for HTML tag helpers should be
just as seamless as specifying attributes for haml elements. I don't see the
point in having the haml markup decide that one is better than the other, and
making things miserable for the people who use the tag helper approach.
Based on the response so far, I really think there's a fundamental disagreement
here that is worth exploring. Why is it "cleaner" and more readable to create a
helper just so I can define a long list of attributes to an html helper
function.
Here's an example from a project of mine (github.com/merbjedi/alertme_tv)
= form_for @user, :action => "/users/mini_register", :method => :put, :class =>
"ajax_form", :rel => "#dropmenu_account", :builder => FieldBuilder do
.....
If this is used only one place in the project, what possible benefit is there
in turning this into a helper? The cost: I'd have to name the helper, add tests
for it, then have to worry about wrapping the yield statement. The end result:
obfuscating a perfectly readable (though verbose) line of code. And say I later
want to change the target of the ajax form. I have to first track it to the
template, then track the helper that I created to build the form. All hidden
costs that make the code less maintainable for something that is logically
nothing more than a wrapper for a <form> tag.
The alternative:
= form_for @user,
:action => "/users/mini_register",
:method => :put, :class => "ajax_form",
:rel => "#dropmenu_account",
:builder => FieldBuilder do
.....
I think this is slightly better than having it all on one line. And in my
opinion, superior to moving it into a helper. But I can assure you this tweak
wont all of a sudden force you to stop using helpers within your haml templates.
So all I'm after is an answer to this question: if I go ahead and implement
this minor syntax within haml, will it be supported and allowed to be merged
into a future release of haml?
Thanks to everyone on the thread so far for the discussion & feedback.
On Nov 26, 2009, at 1:36 AM, svoop wrote:
> There are those who see helpers as supersemanitc placeholders, others
> who see helpers as extensions to the HTML markup. Personally, I'm not
> dogmatic enough to always prefer one of the two. In the latter case
> what attributes are for HTML are options for the helper.
>
> Not sure whether the parser could handle this, but why not using the
> comma as line continuation marker?
>
> = link_to 'Akzeptieren', accept_registration_path(user),
> :class => 'accept button',
> :'data-remote' => true,
> :'data-method' => :put
>
> If you're that concerned about abuse, just raise an exception if the
> first non-whitespace on the followup line is not a colon.
>
> --
>
> 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.
>
>
--
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.
