On 8/27/07, Ben Bangert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Aug 27, 2007, at 9:20 AM, Marcin Kasperski wrote: > > > Well, that's generally the same trick as discussed earlier as a > > workaround - forcing parameter difference (here - extra param). I do > > not understand why named routes works the way you describe. Does there > > exist any case when one wants to specify the named route while calling > > url_for and then have url generated by another route??? > > If there's a shorter route possible that it might be able to find, it > can. However, I am open to adding an option to Routes that lets you > declare "Named routes force generation with the exact route named". > Would anyone want this option?
I'd use it. I've run into this problem twice (and totally forgot how I solved it the first time), and I've had one of my developer colleagues come to me with the same problem as well. We almost exclusively use named routes - I think there's only one place in the two projects we've done with Routes where we don't - and so the current behaviour feels a bit weird. Neil -- Neil Blakey-Milner http://nxsy.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pylons-discuss" 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/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
