On Mar 20, 9:18 pm, Nathan Weizenbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Huh... I wasn't aware that there was a better way of messing with > methods. Would you be willing to do the same treatment for the other two > methods in ActionViewMods? > > In general, attaching a patch file is better than pasting it into an > email, because then it doesn't get auto-formatted.
OK, I've uploaded the patches as files -- for some reason, my email with attachments seemed to go into the bitbucket. They're the helper_test.diff and action_view_mods.diff from 3/27/07. It was a bigger refactor than I'd expected; I wound up moving most of the code into ActionView::Helpers::* instead of Haml::Helpers::ActionViewMods -- this was needed to get scoping working right. The is_haml? checks in all the methods should be enough to keep haml's behavior from affecting other template handlers. I did need to make one change to the tests: for some reason, helper_test.rb:64 raised a NameError instead of an ArgumentError. concat() seems to work properly in and out of haml, though, so I changed the test to take a NameError as proper_behavior. I don't know enough of the internal mechanics of either haml or template handlers to be really confident of the quality of this patch; you'll probably wanna check it out pretty thoroughly before putting it in stable ;-) Cheers! -Nate --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Haml" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/haml?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
