On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 9:32 PM, Hampton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> * If you are debugging, your first step will have to be View Source
> since you will be unaware of what is being created. Your first
> instinct is "holy crap it must not be doing the right thing". This
> slows you down.
I agree with this 100%.
> * Nesting partials gets trick, trick, tricky. I can think of many
> complex examples where tracking this would be a fucking pain.
Well, I never even thought of tracking it across nested templates. It would
be hard to implement, I guess.
> The only thing I'd consider for "official" syntax is a "GUESS" command.
>
> %table
> ?
> ?.name
> Data
> ?.value
> Data
>
I like having the "guess" character since it would allow me to build nodes
without specifying a classname or ID. I never thought of this. I dislike
using the "?" character, however. I would much rather use asterisk or
dollar.
%table
*
*.name Mislav
*.age 24
What do you think? Is there a character more appropriate?
Regarding other people disliking this because of "magic": I agree. Giving
people this behavior is not necessarily giving them power; it can also take
away power (as Hampton said) and lead to some debugging sessions. Jeff
Casimir demonstrated this: he thought that SPAN will be generated inside the
LI, but in fact DIV is generated. While this can educate people on HTML (as
Eric noted), it can also be frustrating.
Explicitness in programming is not always bad; quite the opposite. In Haml
templates it leads to readability, which is good. I came up with this idea
because I wanted to sacrifice explicitness for ease of typing, but maybe the
trade-off isn't fair. But, because I learned HTML directly from the spec and
its DTD, I know all the nesting rules by heart and therefore I benefit from
this "magic". Other developers who never read the DTD may not benefit in the
same way and will feel uneasy about using the syntax because they will not
be sure what's being generated.
I don't want to kill off my baby, however. Neither does Hampton or Nathan,
as they expressed it openly. I'll keep my "html" branch alive and try to
actually use it, see if I hit some negative consequences with this. Maybe
I'll also release this as an evil twin plugin for Haml, it is very easy to
monkeypatch in core Haml.
You are free to pull my branch and play with it. Thanks for all the comments
and praises.
So how does the community feel about the "guess" syntax (middle of this
email)? It has more chance of becoming core.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
