I'm basing my guess that the current behavior is jarring not so much on what I personally feel (although even I have accidentally written "= text_area" a few times), but on the support questions we get on this group. Before 1.5, people asking why their whitespace didn't work was about tied with people asking why templates with improper indentation didn't render right. Then in 1.5 we added error checking, and whitespace questions became most prominent. Just empirically, this is something that trips people up. We don't want to force it to be the case that everyone has to come to the group when they need to get whitespace to work (because of course users never read the manual). At least, that's how I see it.
- Nathan s.ross wrote: > DHH raised an interesting point on Rails-Core about PoLS: > > http://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/99860#215804 > > Summarized: PoLS ... holds an assumption of universality that is > rarely, if ever, present. > > A better elaboration on this is on the Wikipedia article about Ruby > (look in the philosophy section): > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_programming_language > > The key question under discussion is that what's unsurprising for me > might be surprising for you and vice-versa. Or, to quote Matz, > "principle of least surprise is not for you only." > > In major part, I'm playing devil's advocate because this same > discussion has been had several times and once Nathan or Hampton said > use preserve or ~ everyone said, "now I see." > > I don't mean to single you out, Irfy, this just happened to be where > I jumped in to this thread. It's the concept that Haml's behavior > should be like HTML's that I feel needs better examination. If you > feel it is unsurprising for Haml to act like HTML in most cases, then > I'm not sure you're really accomplishing much that your couldn't with > rhtml. > > It is surprising -- even jarring -- to use a whitespace-meaningful > grammar when most parsing is whitespace-insensitive, yet all of us > who have been using Haml do that without question (right?). We, > therefore, have to ask: Are all our Surprise-O-Meters calibrated the > same? > > Just a few thoughts. And, for the record, I'm in favor of using ~ or > preserve. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
