I agree its a must have, but that 3 line implementation is going to be different for just about everyone. controller.action_name seems like a really bad thing to scope on since the difference between the new/ create and edit/update actions have nothing to do with the view layer since its likely they are rendering the same view form.
Overall, not too big a deal. Since most people should be able to override it (when stuff is working right). On Nov 22, 3:33 pm, hampton c <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sorry it bungled your ApplicationHelper overrides... that definitely > shouldn't happen. > > However, it does check for Rails to be installed... and personally, I > find it *really* helpful in doing > Haml-style development in Rails. > > Classing your body tag is a must-have for Haml/Sass developers... sure > its 3 lines, but should we all > repeat them? > > On Nov 22, 5:58 pm, railsjedi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi. I recently ran into a problem on Rails 2.2 where the page_class in > > Haml is overwriting my page_class helper in application_helpers.rb. > > > I'm investigating a fix in the Rails core, but I'm also curious... > > does this page_class helper really need to be in haml? Seems like it > > would be a good change to get rid of that action_view_extensions > > altogether. It's Rails specific, and doesnt do anything thats core to > > Haml. If someone needed it, it would be a 3 liner in their > > application_helper.rb. > > > Thanks > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
