On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 1:32 AM, ericindc <ericmilf...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Ok, I follow having all models respond to "title", but why would > implementing the model's "to_s" method be a better approach? Is it > just for consistency, always expecting to_s to return what the partial > should display? How is that any different that expecting all models > to answer to title? >
First it's for the sake of consistency, but it's also 'cos the to_s method is defined to return a "string representation of the object", so if you already have a method that does what you want, why create another one or why care about creating another method that "returns a string representation of the object"? This way you don't need to add extra virtual methods at your models, you just expect them to have a good to_s implementation. > Thanks. This has been really helpful. I used your example to create > the following. Thoughts? > > http://pastie.org/402843 It's good, but that's how I'd do it -> http://pastie.org/403009 The more conventions you have, the easier it is to keep things consistent in your pages. - Maurício Linhares http://alinhavado.wordpress.com/ (pt-br) | http://blog.codevader.com/ (en) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
