New HAML feature idea

Evgeny: Yeah, cool idea. Implemented in trunk. Thanks.

Mislav: Just think of it as passing arguments to a *arg for
a method. 
That's actually how I implemented it, so it's a good
conceptual model.

- Nathan

Mislav Marohnić wrote:
> Nice idea. The syntax could be different, though,
because I don't want 
> to feel like I'm writing invalid Ruby ...
>
> On Dec 19, 2007 1:38 AM, Evgeny < evgeny.zislisgmail.com

> <mailto:evgeny.zislisgmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Actually, this might already be implemented .. but
it's 2:40am and
>     I have this idea ..
>
>     Flatten of hashes that come from helpers. And
merging them or
>     something.
>
>     Like in this example, both hashes are merged into
one haml "hash" :
>     http://pastie.caboo.se/
130307
>
>
>     - evgeny
>
>
>
>
> >


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "Haml" group.
To post to this group, send email to hamlgooglegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
haml-unsubscribegooglegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://grou
ps.google.com/group/haml?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

If you have a suggestion, I'm all ears, but I think this is
one of those 
situations where we need to sacrifice consistency for the
sake of power. 
And for the sake of not adding even more sorts of tag
syntax.

Mislav Marohnić wrote:
> On Dec 19, 2007 11:04 AM, Evgeny <evgeny.zislisgmail.com

> <mailto:evgeny.zislisgmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Mislav, the { } syntax near the haml element --
it's not ruby,
>     it's haml 
>
>
> I know, but it was designed to mimic Ruby hashes ...
code inside of it 
> is evaluated like in Ruby.
>
> >


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "Haml" group.
To post to this group, send email to hamlgooglegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
haml-unsubscribegooglegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://grou
ps.google.com/group/haml?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

This is the current implementation. I'm inclined to keep it
this way, 
because I think there are a lot of situations in which it
would be 
useful to have one hash override another, and I think the
ordering makes 
the precedence pretty explicit.

Mislav Marohnić wrote:
> Later ones should overwrite previous values silently.
>
> On Dec 19, 2007 12:12 PM, Jeff Casimir <jeffcasimircreative.com 
> <mailto:jeffcasimircreative.com>> wrote:
>
>     I like it.  Could there be an exception/warning
for
>     double-definition of key/value pairs?
>
>     - Jeff
>
>
>     On 12/19/07, * Nathan Weizenbaum* < nex342gmail.com
>     <mailto:nex342gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
>         If you have a suggestion, I'm all ears, but I
think this is
>         one of those
>         situations where we need to sacrifice
consistency for the sake
>         of power.
>         And for the sake of not adding even more sorts
of tag syntax.
>
>         Mislav Marohnić wrote:
>         > On Dec 19, 2007 11:04 AM, Evgeny <
evgeny.zislisgmail.com
>         <mailto:evgeny.zislisgmail.com>
>         > <mailto:evgeny.zislisgmail.com
>         <mailto:evgeny.zislisgmail.com>>>
wrote:
>         >
>         >     Mislav, the { } syntax near the haml
element -- it's not
>         ruby,
>         >     it's haml 
>         >
>         >
>         > I know, but it was designed to mimic Ruby
hashes ... code
>         inside of it
>         > is evaluated like in Ruby.
>         >
>         > >
>
>
>
>
> >


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "Haml" group.
To post to this group, send email to hamlgooglegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
haml-unsubscribegooglegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://grou
ps.google.com/group/haml?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---