In response to myself, having nil eliminate the attribute is kind of nice specifically for this checked attribute case. Makes having it conditionally checked much simpler. However, it means I can't really think of a way to express leaving the attribute value off entirely. Oh well.
On Jul 23, 11:21 pm, Tom Bagby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks very much. I agree that there should be a difference. The > patch as submitted needs to also handle build_attributes in Buffer as > well. Maybe now is the time to make a single build_attributes class > method, Nathan? > > There is another interpretation of nil attributes that I think I > prefer. There is currently no way to add attributes without values. > Like > > <input type=checkbox checked> > > You have to assign a dummy value for the checked attribute, which > works, but is not really correct. I've really wanted to have that > available and I'm not sure of another syntax that would work for it. > Also, I think this case might be more common than wanting to > conditionally eliminate attributes. Opinions? > > -Tom > > On Jul 23, 7:40 am, Nathan Weizenbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Agreed. I'll try to apply it tonight. > > > - Nathan > > > Mislav Marohnić wrote: > > > On 7/23/07, *Jan Szumiec* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > > > I found that haml currently doesn't distinguish between nil and empty > > > ("") attributes which seems to me a little bit weird. > > > > This is a serious issue! > > > +1 for your patch --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
