Nathan,

IMHO, textarea is not a "case that doesn't come up at all for most
people".  It comes up for everyone who creates a form.

Ross argues for maintaining the integrity of haml the template
langauge.  When I suggested special behavior for textarea and pre, I
was arguing for maintaining the integrity of the markup that haml
produces.

I love haml and I can live with the deprecation, but I don't buy the
arguments.  ~ is no more obscure than %, - or find_and_preserve.

-- Jeff


On Feb 11, 1:45 am, Nathan Weizenbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree with Steve. We want the Haml commands, especially those used
> most commonly (%, -, and =) to behave as intuitively as possible, not
> have special behaviors for various special cases that probably don't
> come up at all for most people. Special cases have special handlers; in
> this case, the find_and_preserve helper function.
>
> As to readability, I think having an obscure command, such as "~", or
> worse yet no command at all, is much less readable than a clearly-named
> helper method.
>
> - Nathan
>
> Jeff wrote:
> > I needed ~ to make my textareas work.  Why would one ever want the
> > unfiltered behavior for textarea and pre tags?  Why doesn't haml
> > filter those tags automatically?  IMHO haml breaks those tags and I
> > shouldn't have to use a filter to get the behavior I would expect.
>
> > I think I should be able to say:
> > = textarea :user, :profile
>
> > and get the same result as is currently returned by
> > ~ textarea :user, :profile
>
> > The new methods may improve the haml source code, but from my
> > perspective as a user, they don't improve ease of use or readiblity of
> > my code.
>
> > Thanks,
> > -- 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to