While I don't find anything conceptually wrong and would even +1 this because there's times it would be convenient, I simply do this:
http://gist.github.com/13840 -chris On Sep 30, 6:16 am, Jacques Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In the process of bombarding the world with open source haml rails > apps (see here, here, here), I've definitely noticed a few small > things haml could do to increase the readability of haml view code. > > The most important one that I would like to suggest is some kind of > universal interpolation of #{} without the requirement of beginning > the line with ==. I've been using == so much lately that its starting > to look pretty ugly. Seems like it would help a lot if that it was the > standard. So my question to haml users is: what would be the speed and > functionality implications of allowing #{} to be used anywhere without > the requirement of ==? > > Here's a quick code example:http://gist.github.com/13805 > > I imagine automatically treating every static content line as if it > were a == would make haml an order of magnitude slower. The trick > would be to specifically recognize the existence of #{} in content > blocks (hopefully via a super fast content eval) and automatically > turn the evaluation of that line to ==. > > I spent a little time looking at the the haml codebase to verify my > findings but things haven't clicked for me yet. Would love any > feedback from someone who has a better handle on the parser on whether > this is possible without a huge problem in performance. Aside from the > implementation details, is there anyone who would object functionality- > wise to being able to use #{} anywhere in normal content blocks? Since > #{} is a rarely used html token I don't think it would conflict with > peoples existing view code. And since this type of automatic > interpolation is already done by default within Filters, it seems a > natural extension to use it in normal content blocks. > > Would love feedback on anything regarding the idea or implementation > challenges. Maybe I'm way off base here, but if it sounds like > something that had a remote chance to be added to haml core, I can do > some hacking on a fork and see how it goes. > > Thanks > > -Jacques > railsjedi.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
