On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 3:10 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just noticed another syntax complaint:
>
> _label "Contributor's Name:", for: 'iclaname'
Again, that's syntax that has been supported since Ruby 1.9.
> The colon after for is flagged as unexpected.
>
> The other main complaint is about:
>
> onClick: -> {@form = ICLA}
And, again, syntax that was introduced in Ruby 1.9
It looks like Eclipse is stuck in 1.8.7, which was retired in
https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2013/06/30/we-retire-1-8-7/, but
still in active use.
For those familiar with Python, the transition from Ruby 1.8.x to Ruby
1.9.x mirrors the transition from Python 2 to Python 3 (particularly
in terms of Unicode support), just that the Ruby language transition
was more backwards compatible, and therefore less traumatic.
- Sam Ruby
> On 28 March 2016 at 19:54, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 28 March 2016 at 19:47, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 2:06 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> The class: attribute is frequently used in Wunderbar HTML tags.
>>>
>>> Indeed.
>>>
>>>> This causes problems for Ruby syntax checkers.
>>>
>>> I'd be curious as to which ones, as that would indicate a syntax
>>> checker that hasn't been updated since Ruby 1.9 was release in 2007.
>>
>> I use the one in Eclipse.
>>
>>>> It would be useful if there was an alias that could be used instead.
>>>> Since it appears frequently, it might be nice to allow c:
>>>> Alternatively, clazz: would do.
>>>
>>> First, wunderbar does support an alternative, but only for class names
>>> known at compile time: element class and id syntax adopted by markaby,
>>> example:
>>>
>>> _p.important
>>
>> Does that work with tag! ?
>>
>> e.g. would this work?
>>
>> tag!._stdin
>>
>>> Second, as HTML is case insensitive, both Class and CLASS should also
>>> work.
>>
>> Using Class: avoids the error, so that would work for me.
>>
>>> As I feel that it is important for code to be read as written,
>>> I would prefer to avoid things like 'c', or perhaps even 'clazz' as
>>> those could be valid attribute names. If an alternative is required,
>>> I would prefer to go with _class.
>>>
>>> - Sam Ruby
