This is the current implementation. I'm inclined to keep it this way, because I think there are a lot of situations in which it would be useful to have one hash override another, and I think the ordering makes the precedence pretty explicit.
Mislav Marohnić wrote: > Later ones should overwrite previous values silently. > > On Dec 19, 2007 12:12 PM, Jeff Casimir <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > I like it. Could there be an exception/warning for > double-definition of key/value pairs? > > - Jeff > > > On 12/19/07, * Nathan Weizenbaum* < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > > 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]> > > <mailto:[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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
