Ben Bangert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Aug 24, 2007, at 2:56 AM, Dan Korostelev wrote: > >> Yeah, I also worked around the problem this way, but I don't like >> it. Looks like there's a bug in Routes. Thanks for information. > > There's no bug in routes, this is exactly how it works, and how the > docs indicate it works. (...) > The route name does *not* mean that the route its at will actually > be the path generated. It means that the default args you give for > that route will be pulled in as if you had specified them in the > url_for.
OK, so it is a bug by design. Take a look at the original example, and spend a minute thinking whether the routes behaviour in this case is what would one expect. And ... so how should be this very case solved? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pylons-discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
