ah thats neat
On Feb 10, 2:13 pm, Hampton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree, Alistair.
>
> I like my syntax.
>
> We are going with the
>
> == These two lines do the same thing! #{Time.now}
> = "These two lines do the same thing #{Time.now}"
>
> This will be added to trunk soon.
>
> -hampton.
>
> On 2/10/07, alistairholt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Why do replies never seem to get posted?.. anyway.. sorry if this is a
> > double post.
>
> > I really like the idea of using:
>
> > == Hello #{momma}
>
> > This has been the biggest problem I've faced since becoming a Haml
> > user and this would be a very nice solution.
>
> > On Feb 8, 7:33 pm, Hampton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Eh, we probably couldn't just "run it through" erb every time. That
> > > could have some terrible consequences with both security and
> > > performance. We'd have to compound our processing with the equal
> > > amount of processing for erb.
>
> > > Also, I don't want it parsing an output. What if a user generated bit
> > > had a <% `rm -rf \*` %> ont it? Also, what about the order of
> > > execution? I mean, if I do...
>
> > > <%= @start %>
> > > - @start = "hello"
> > > = @start
> > > - @start = "boo"
>
> > > and you might get
>
> > > boo
> > > hello
>
> > > as your output, because erb might be run after. Or, if it was before,
> > > you might have side-effects where the <% is run first and can modify
> > > things in a different order than the Haml interpreting. And, if you
> > > did them at the same time, then ERB would be *slow*. You'd have to
> > > have it "start-up" the render engine for every line! Which, is NOT
> > > what we want.
>
> > > If anything, I would have Haml precompile the <%= blah %> into the
> > > buffer as a "marked" section of needing printing.
>
> > > So, user-data is not parsed for <%= %>. And, it would only happen
> > > once... at precompile. And it would only happen on some lines.
>
> > > Heck, maybe we'd even use a marker.
>
> > > == Hello <%= momma %>
>
> > > Or do.
>
> > > == Hello #{momma}
>
> > > Yeah, actually, I kind of like that last one. Its kind of odd and not
> > > *everyone* would use it. However, it would be good to have in the
> > > Haml-toolkit. That would be *SUPER* easy to implement. Simply treat it
> > > like a
>
> > > = "Hello #{momma}"
>
> > > Thoughts?
>
> > > -hampton.
>
> > > On 2/8/07, Jeffrey Hardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > On 8-Feb-07, at 1:45 PM, Hampton wrote:
> > > > > Well, we *COULD* do the erb syntax.
>
> > > > > #tag
> > > > > fix the <%= thing.name %> boyyyeeee!
>
> > > > I'm thinking the erb syntax is a good idea. Its function is obvious,
> > > > which I like. (Everybody knows how erb works). Erb also has the
> > > > advantage of being easier to implement; since you can just run the
> > > > pre-compiled template through erb, there's no need to write your own
> > > > parser.
>
> > > > /Jeff
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
