I'd say the latter option (not to emit CSS files on an error) is the right one (keeping the update-only-if-newer optimization is really useful to save cycles on larger trees). I'd assume that option to be a default, but if you don't want to change the current mimic, e.g. call it "--break-on-errors". Unfortunately I am not a ruby guy, so could not help out, sorry.
--bb On Aug 16, 10:56 am, Nathan Weizenbaum <[email protected]> wrote: > I wouldn't be opposed to adding another flag that either causes --update to > update all files regardless of whether the CSS is newer than the source > (--force? --update-all?), or a flag that causes it not to emit CSS files on > an error (I'm not sure what this one would be called). Are you comfortable > enough coding Ruby that you think you could make a patch for that? > > > > > > > > On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 12:47 PM, bitbowl <[email protected]> wrote: > > It's a larger webapp being built by hudson build bots. There are > > several people working on the tree and if there's wrong scss, it's > > quite handy to immediately get to know of it and what check-in broke > > it -- like for any other portions of code, if possible. > > > --bb > > > On Aug 15, 9:20 pm, Nathan Weizenbaum <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Many people completely ignore the output of the compiler itself, and only > > > look at the page. This is especially true when using --watch, but can > > also > > > happen with --update (e.g. when it's hooked up to a text editor's > > "compile" > > > button, or when using something like live-refresh). In this case, it's > > very > > > useful to have error reporting in the webpage that the user is viewing. > > > > What's your use case for having sass --update be idempotent? > > > > On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 12:14 PM, bitbowl <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Excuse my ignorance, but what's the benefit of having compilation > > > > errors in the generated css? > > > > > IMHO idempotent behavior is an essential requirement of compilers to > > > > assert clean builds. Even if haml/sass have been designed differently > > > > -- how hard would it be to enforce strict error handling for this > > > > great tool? > > > > > thanks, > > > > --bb > > > -- > > 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] <haml%[email protected]>. > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/haml?hl=en. -- 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.
