>there are Haml implementations for [...] even Erlang
No way! Cool! Now all we need is one for Scheme, although those
folks will probably say that s-exps are all you'd ever need. ;)
Since HAML's got cross-platform/-language covered, it sounds like
sphaml's niche is in minimalism and extra-terse syntax. So, back to
that point, with the email I didn't get around to sending yesterday:
(Good counter-points, Steve.) The only thing that really stumps me
about the pipe syntax is how to notate an empty tag. For a little
less contrived example, let's say I'm printing out rows from a
database:
table
<% foreach row in table: %>
tr
td | <%=row.required%>
td | <%=row.optional%>
<% end %>
What happens when row.optional==""? Don't you get:
table
tr
td | req1
td |
tr
td | req2
td | opt2
and wouldn't that generate:
<table>
<tr>
<td>req1</td>
td |
</tr>
<tr>
<td>req2</td>
<td>opt2</td>
</tr>
</table>
which shows up in the browser as:
td |
req1
req2 opt2
> The main rationale for [no scripting language sugar] is simplicity and
> versatility, so that it can work with other templating languages.
Could the previously-mentioned HAML way of escaping code (-,=) be
exposed in a language-independent way? As in, the user specifies
somewhere (either as an argument/config to sphaml, or at the top of
their source file) how "tag=some_code" should expand? Wouldn't it
always be like:
<tag> START_CODE some_code STOP_CODE </tag>
where START_CODE and STOP_CODE are defined like:
case $language:
"ruby":
START_CODE="<%="
STOP_CODE="%>"
"php":
START_CODE="<? echo "
STOP_CODE="?>"
...
PS. It's nice n' easy how all the code is in one <4 page file.
--
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.
