That seems like it would work, and there's every reason to use it but it begs the question: Why not do pretty much every filtering thingie this way instead of filters? Conversely, there is the issue of the implied "do". The code reads like Ruby, but because it's Haml, you leave off the "do" so it looks invalid (ecch).
Thoughts? On Dec 19, 2007, at 11:26 AM, Evgeny wrote: > How about a helpers that accept blocks? > Can't they kind of replace filters somehow? > > Like for example this disfunctional code: > http://pastie.caboo.se/130606 > > > - evgeny > > > On Dec 19, 2007 9:10 PM, s.ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How about the optional argument specifying the number of cols? > > Thx > > On Dec 19, 2007, at 11:04 AM, Nathan Weizenbaum wrote: > >> Filters are, at the moment, all evaluated at precompile-time, rather >> than render-time. This means that there's no way to get a >> reference to >> the view object that has helpers defined, nor to take arguments >> from the >> template. We plan to add this ability at some point. > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
