In examining the source, Tom seems to be right. I guess the question is
more one of style and convention than implementation. What would break
or work inconsistently if the attributes_hash was merged first? I think
the big one is the converse of what I want to do -- if the user wanted
to override (i.e. replace) the id or class of the object reference.
Sean
>
> Nathan, I assumed this was an unintentional quirk in the
> implementation? Seems like it is reordering the merges and passing
> all the existing attributes to the object ref stuff that would fix his
> problem, yes? As in %div{:class => condition ? "selected" : ""}
> [item] would work fine, special case of supplying nil is
> unnecessary? (Though that will work also since with all the to_s'ing,
> the nil turns into a "" also in the current version)
>
> -Tom
>
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
