<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 12:16 AM, James Britt <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:james@neurogami.com">james@neurogami.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">Gour wrote:<br>
> On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 23:14:15 -0700<br>
>>>>>>> "Michael" == Michael Snoyman wrote:<br>
><br>
> Michael> Funny to see this mentioned right now; I'm in the middle of<br>
> Michael> incorporating it into Yesod. It's most definitely haml-like:<br>
><br>
> Heh...somehow I've stumbled upon Haml/Sass after researching about<br>
> static-site generators (StaticMatic supports Haml) and then thought<br>
> about Haskell...which has brought me to Hamlet. :-)<br>
><br>
> The wikipedia page (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haml#Implementations" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haml#Implementations</a>)<br>
> lists severeal implementations, that's why I've asked if Hamlet could<br>
> be counted as one?<br>
><br>
> Michael> haml itself allows embedding of arbitrary Ruby code, so that's<br>
> Michael> not really something I'm interested in here.<br>
><br>
> Same here. No interest in Ruby.<br>
<br></div>
The use of Ruby is orthogonal to Haml. Ruby implementations allow for inserting Ruby. There's no reason any other implementation has to do that. It's meant to output (x)html. A Haskell version could have inline Haskell. Or not.<br>
<br></blockquote><div>I really was saying that I don't want to allow embedding of arbitrary code in templates.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
(That said, I can't stand Haml, and it's popularity among Rubyists is depressing. I'd avoid it just as much were it part of any Haskell lib.)<br>
<br></blockquote><div>Out of curiosity, why? I've never really used it large-scale before, but it seems to work rather nicely.</div><div><br></div><div>Michael</div></div>