Guys, What was the rationale behind moving to the swiss army-ish method of render(:X), as opposed to the various render_X methods that existed before? I find it easier to keep the render_X style in my brain, rather than trying to remember what the valid parameters to render() are. It''s also more code completion friendly. Just curious. Thanks, John -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
Will Briggs
2006-Jan-19 18:26 UTC
[Rails] Rationale behind render opposed to render_action
I dunno, I don''t find it that much more difficult... if you used to do render_text "Hi there", you just split out the part after "render_" as a separate parameter.. i.e., render :text => ''Hi there" render_controller "myController" changes to render :controller => "myController". I find the new method more intuitive and extensible, but that''s just the opinions of a relative Rails newbie. -Will On 1/19/06, John Wells <lists@sourceillustrated.com> wrote:> > Guys, > > What was the rationale behind moving to the swiss army-ish method of > render(:X), as opposed to the various render_X methods that existed > before? > > I find it easier to keep the render_X style in my brain, rather than > trying to remember what the valid parameters to render() are. It''s also > more code completion friendly. > > Just curious. > > Thanks, > John > > -- > Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails@lists.rubyonrails.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://wrath.rubyonrails.org/pipermail/rails/attachments/20060119/dc1241a0/attachment-0001.html