If you have a suggestion, I'm all ears, but I think this is one of those situations where we need to sacrifice consistency for the sake of power. And for the sake of not adding even more sorts of tag syntax.
Mislav Marohnić wrote: > On Dec 19, 2007 11:04 AM, Evgeny <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > Mislav, the { } syntax near the haml element -- it's not ruby, > it's haml :) > > > I know, but it was designed to mimic Ruby hashes ... code inside of it > is evaluated like in Ruby. > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
