Supose i have this simple but fairly nested Eco template:
<div class="example">
  <% for thing, i in @things: %>
    <div class="nested">
      <% if i % 2 == 0: %>
        This block is fairly nested.
      <% end %>
    </div>
  <% end %>
</div>
When compiled to JS the result is:
function(__obj) {
  // ... A couple of auxiliary functions ...
  (function() {
    (function() {
      var i, thing, _i, _len, _ref;
      __out.push('<div class="example">\n  ');
      _ref = this.things;
      for (i = _i = 0, _len = _ref.length; _i < _len; i = ++_i) {
        thing = _ref[i];
        __out.push('\n    <div class="nested">\n      ');
        if (i % 2 === 0) {
          __out.push('\n        This block is fairly nested.\n      ');
        }
        __out.push('\n    </div>\n  ');
      }
      __out.push('\n</div>\n');
    }).call(this);
  }).call(__obj);
  __obj.safe = __objSafe, __obj.escape = __escape;
  return __out.join('');
}
Now, this function (which is served as JS to the client to do client-side rendering) includes some unnecessary blanks spaces on strings, like ...
`'\n        This block is fairly nested.\n      '`
... that cannot be removed by a JS compressor because they are not JS blank space (but become HTML blank space when rendered). I understand Eco compiles the templates this way to keep their output nicely indented, which is cool in a development environment, but not so much on a production one :D
Is there a way to remove this unnecessary blank spaces from the eco.precompile output?
BTW, i'm using Sprockets to compile, concatenate and serve these assets.
 
                        
If Eco honors XML comments, this might help:
Though, you would have to make a choice between this ugliness or the ugliness of giving up indentation.