> This is an interesting way to solve that problem. Why not go with a
> helper function?
>
> - online do
> whatever
>
> - Nathan
Because I wanted the stuff within the "oneline" construct to be
specified as Haml. It seemed inelegant to me to have to drop into
Ruby when the content wasn't even dynamic to overcome what I felt was
a minor limitation of the templating system. Seemed to make more
sense to just go ahead and remove the limitation.
For example, what if I had:
:oneline
%pre
%code
:preserve
# This is some static ruby code
# which I want to display for the
# world to see.
puts eval(2 + 2)
Surely you don't disagree that that is a much nicer way of outputting
"<pre><code># This is some static ruby code
# which I want to
display for the
# world to see.
puts eval(2 +
2)
</code></pre>\n" than it would be if I tried to use a helper
method to generate that.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
