On Sunday 31 January 2010, Marnen Laibow-Koser wrote: > Michael Schuerig wrote: > > On Sunday 31 January 2010, Marnen Laibow-Koser wrote: > >> Michael Schuerig wrote: > >> [...] > >> > >> > Helpers are procedural by nature. helper :all drives out the > >> > last bit of polymorphism there was. > >> > >> Why do you say that? I don't understand, except to the extent > >> that Rails views are sort of procedural. > > > > If you only include specific helper modules, you can have multiple > > methods with the same name, but different implementations. This can > > be useful in order to avoid inadvertently stepping on another > > method with the same name in an overcrowded helper namespace. > > Of course. No argument there. I just don't understand your > "procedural" claim.
Well, helper methods *are* procedural. Only by judiciously including helper modules you can manually achieve the illusion of polymorphism (one method name, multiple implementations). > > More interestingly, > > you can have generically named helper methods with implementations > > appropriate for different model classes. > > But then wouldn't those be better as model methods, not helper > methods? Formatting (e.g.) doesn't belong in the model, does it? Michael -- Michael Schuerig mailto:mich...@schuerig.de http://www.schuerig.de/michael/ -- 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-t...@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.
