I like the idea but it also makes me uneasy. When I first started using Haml my brain associated `#foo` and `.foo` as 'a <div> tag with [id/class] of `foo`'. This change would make the #/. syntax stand for 'the most appropriate element with the [id/class] of `foo`'. The switch from being explicitly-implicit to implicitly-implicit is the source of my uneasiness. One 'implicit' is pretty magical already.
But! My brain can make this switch in the majority of cases (like the ones you gave, Mislav) but there are two problem-cases that come to mind (there might be more or these might be wrong). Tables: %table #foo thead, tbody and tfoot can go here, right? You might not expect a user to expect to put an implicit tag here but it's still a syntactical possibility. Forms: %form #foo What is supposed to be placed there? There are a number of valid tags (not span, though, p works) that could be plopped there. Again, this doesn't make a lot of sense for someone to be doing but it would still be possible. Are these really problem-cases or am I missing something? If they are, would Haml error out or just use the next-best-substitute? -- Bryce --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
