Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Jul 6, 2023. It is now read-only.

EEx instead of Slime #124

Open
tielur opened this issue Feb 26, 2021 · 9 comments
Open

EEx instead of Slime #124

tielur opened this issue Feb 26, 2021 · 9 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@tielur
Copy link

tielur commented Feb 26, 2021

How hard would it be to use something like EEx instead of Slime?

@gabrielpoca
Copy link
Member

Hey @tielur EEx should be working. I have to finish a section on documentation about it, but if you put a file with the extension .eex it works like Slime. Or did you try it and it didn't work 🙈?

@tielur
Copy link
Author

tielur commented Mar 1, 2021

You know... I didn't try 🤦 I just assumed it was hardcoded to Slime because that was the only mix dependency. I'll give EEx a shot today. If I run into anything I'll ask a question here. If you need any help with documentation I can give that a whirl

@gabrielpoca
Copy link
Member

@tielur it's our fault for not having a single example with eex. I've merged a PR with more docs on that and I'll publish a new version in a bit, feel free to ask questions, it will help us improve the docs!

@tielur
Copy link
Author

tielur commented Mar 2, 2021

@gabrielpoca what's your thoughts on an argument being passed to mix still.new to use EEx when generating the site instead of Slime?

@tielur
Copy link
Author

tielur commented Mar 2, 2021

mix still.new my_site --preprocessor eex
mix still.new my_site --preprocessor slime

We could default it to slime to keep backwards compatability. I'm not sure if preprocessor is the best argument name

@tielur
Copy link
Author

tielur commented Mar 2, 2021

If you agree this could be helpful and the argument name can be decided I'm willing to open a PR to add that feature

@gabrielpoca
Copy link
Member

I agree with you that it's not clear that you can use .eex instead of .slime, but I'm not sure that adding that option to the generator really achieves that goal. What do you think of a simpler solution, like adding a page built with .eex to the generated site? Or simply transforming the footer.slime into a footer.eex? Would that be enough for the users to understand that you can use both?

@tielur
Copy link
Author

tielur commented Mar 5, 2021

@gabrielpoca That might be more confusing on why some are slime and some are EEx, I think if the documentation is updated to at least mention that EEx is available out of the box that's probably fine 👍

@gabrielpoca
Copy link
Member

You're right. I'll make time next week to work on the docs. Just today someone was having issues contributing because they didn't know that you need ImageMagick in your system :s

@gabrielpoca gabrielpoca added the enhancement New feature or request label Mar 11, 2021
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants