The more I think about the "guess" command, the more iffy I am on it. If I KNOW what is supposed to go there, then I'm only saving 2 characters on a %tr and I'm losing explicitness. I'm just having trouble coming up with a use-case that makes any sense.
* does look nice, but what are we really ~gaining~. Can someone come up with some examples when the utility of * (or even the original idea). Like, "in this situation ____ is easier because _____." But, only examples that improve both _clarity_ and _efficiency_. I need these to be compelling problems we run into right now. -hampton. On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 5:48 PM, Mislav Marohnić <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
