Hmm... actually, I do prefer = and +. + makes more sense for insertion anyway.
Getting mixins to work through includes would definitely be a plus. Garry Hill wrote: > On 14 Apr 2008, at 15:30, Nathan Weizenbaum wrote: > > >> No, no, I mean that attributes will always match one of two regexps >> that >> mixins won't (specifically, Sass::ATTRIBUTE and >> Sass::ATTRIBUTE_ALTERNATE_MATCHER). This is the same way we >> distinguish >> attributes from plain old rules. >> > > Ah, my mistake. I see what you're getting at now. > > >> I mostly just like the symmetry between + and - :-p. >> > > Me too. Must have been why I chose it, though I can't remember the > logic now. > > Ok, I'm convinced. I'll have a go at the method you're suggesting. I > still think just choosing another char would be clearer, perhaps the > '=' sign would be more to your liking. Then it's more like a variable > assignment: > > =mixin > attribute: value > > > .selector > +mixin > > Does that not tempt?? ;) > > I've been busy using the new code and have also generated a patch that > makes mixins work with includes, like constants do, which is super > useful. I suppose I should keep the two separate, for clarity's sake. > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
