Yes, that would be good. I'll add it in later today.
- Nathan
On 4/16/07, Nick Howell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> buffer.rb:202
> id = "#{class_name}_#{ref.id}"
>
> Should that be something like this?
> id = ref.respond_to?(:new_record?) && ref.new_record? ?
> "new_#{class_name}" : "#{class_name}_#{ref.id}"
>
>
> Then, presumably, this:
>
> %form[x]= "Cats!"
>
> would produce:
> <form id="new_cat">Cats!</form>
> or
> <form id="cat_3">Cats!</form>
>
> when x is a cat (depending on whether it had been stored or not),
> which seems more in-line with form_for (it was definitely what I had
> expected).
>
> Nick
>
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
