Hi,
Here's the latest version: http://pastie.org/175298 On Apr 2, 8:44 pm, Nathan Weizenbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There shouldn't be a Tree::MixinNode type. It's just semantically wrong. > I also don't like #append_to. This should be implementable without > touching anything in tree/ at all. > > Really, I'd prefer duplicating a little appending code to kludges like > this. You could even avoid the duplication by making some sort of > append_all_children method. No more MixinNode. I think it's pretty clean, despite my earlier worries about code repetition. One thing I was looking at was being able to skip the current returning of a string on mixin include and instead simply return an array of nodes, which led me to this follow up patch: http://pastie.org/175310 The only real extra change, outside of tweaks to things I'd already tweaked in the previous patch, was to return an array of DirectiveNodes instead of ValueNodes from the "imports" method, which is actually more consistent with the DirectiveNode that's returned in the case of a raw CSS import. Oh, Thomas, yes, the code you described works as expected. It and even more complex examples have made it into the test template. e.g. -deep a:hover :text-decoration underline .deep +deep == produces .deep a:hover { text-decoration: underline; } === I think this has really profound implications that I hadn't even thought about when I started hacking this in. Fab. Best, g --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
