02:18
ics has joined #nanoc
02:58
ics has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
08:49
prxq has joined #nanoc
09:33
cDlm has joined #nanoc
09:35
<
ddfreyne >
guardian: I understand, but there is no guarantee in which order nanoc compiles items (and thus calls tabs())
09:36
<
ddfreyne >
guardian: So there's the chance of getting different outputs every time you compile
09:36
<
ddfreyne >
guardian: Even worse, this requires
*all* items to be recompiled all the time in order to work properly
09:51
<
guardian >
ddfreyne: I don't need items to be compiled in same order every time
09:52
<
guardian >
ddfreyne: what's the exception raised when an item asks for another item's compiled_content but other item isn't compiled yet?
11:10
jugglinmike has joined #nanoc
11:51
prxq has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
12:49
prxq has joined #nanoc
15:24
prxq has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
15:54
shifrah has joined #nanoc
16:02
shifrah has left #nanoc ["Konversation terminated!"]
17:41
ics has joined #nanoc
17:45
ics_ has joined #nanoc
17:45
ics has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
17:50
ics_ has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
17:53
ics has joined #nanoc
18:03
ics has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
18:11
ics has joined #nanoc
18:15
ics has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
18:17
ics has joined #nanoc
18:24
<
bobthecow >
ddfreyne: iirc it's per-item order that matters, not order between items. i.e. when compiling /foo/, multiple calls to tabs() will result in tabs1 tabs2, etc.
18:24
<
bobthecow >
but when compiling /bar/, it will also result in tabs1, tabs2
19:11
cDlm has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
19:22
prxq has joined #nanoc
19:23
cDlm has joined #nanoc
21:05
cDlm has quit [Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.]
21:11
cDlm has joined #nanoc
22:24
prxq has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
23:55
ics has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
23:55
ics_ has joined #nanoc