Didn't I use the word "disfunctional" ? :) On Dec 19, 2007 9:31 PM, s.ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
