Re: [Rails] Re: Rails' inflections are messy

Guys, lets keep in mind that I meant for this discussion to be about how the inflection rules themselves are bad. Not how they're used internally with Rails, but how the file that defines these rules is an utter mess. On Thursday, August 2, 2012 8:30:33 AM UTC-7, paulie wrote: > > index: GET /me

Re: [Rails] Re: Rails' inflections are messy

Agreed on all counts. I don't think pluralization needs to go anywhere. I think the resourceful routes and controller names are more representative of what's going on. I just think the pluralization rules need to be cleaner and that the backwards compatibility excuse doesn't work so well for a

[Rails] Re: Rails' inflections are messy

of any word is the word itself. From > the user point of view, it would be like there is no pluralization at all. > > Cheers > > On Friday, July 27, 2012 12:00:59 PM UTC-3, davidcelis wrote: >> >> I don't think that's really a good option. Some Rails internals al

[Rails] Inflector rules (singularization and pluralization) for Spanish

Hey, guys. Thought Spanish speakers who follow this board may appreciate that I've added Spanish inflector rules in my inflections gem: https://github.com/davidcelis/inflections I'm fairly well versed in Spanish, but I'm not a native speaker. If anybody notices errors or missin

[Rails] Re: Rails' inflections are messy

I don't think that's really a good option. Some Rails internals already rely heavily upon the inflections; there have to be some pluralizations loaded by default (whether from within the framework, or an inflections gem). If they WERE to be extracted into a gem (which is what I did), it would s

Re: [Rails] Re: Rails' inflections are messy

Any thoughts on this from core members, perhaps? On Friday, July 20, 2012 10:25:20 AM UTC-7, davidcelis wrote: > > Yep, the point I've been getting at. People shouldn't blindly upgrade > their Rails versions anyway, and when they see errors that a Controller > can

Re: [Rails] Re: Rails' inflections are messy

Yep, the point I've been getting at. People shouldn't blindly upgrade their Rails versions anyway, and when they see errors that a Controller can't be found based on their Model name or vice versa, it should be pretty obvious as to what's going on unless they're clueless about the inflector. On

Re: [Rails] Re: Rails' inflections are messy

pgraded. Innumerable applications around > the internet would come to their knees. > > Colin > > > > > > > > > Den torsdagen den 19:e juli 2012 kl. 20:23:15 UTC+2 skrev davidcelis: > >> > >> > >> > >> On Thursd

[Rails] Re: Rails' inflections are messy

On Thursday, July 19, 2012 11:22:40 AM UTC-7, davidcelis wrote: > > For anybody who shares my sentiment, until Rails core decides it's time to > clean up their inflections, I've published a gem to provide more sane > default pluralization/singularization rules: > http

[Rails] Re: Rails' inflections are messy

For anybody who shares my sentiment, until Rails core decides it's time to clean up their inflections, I've published a gem to provide more sane default pluralization/singularization rules: https://github.com/davidcelis/infletions Here's the difference: 4 pluralization rules (

Re: [Rails] Rails' inflections are messy

ollers/routes/models were unchanged so I wouldn't have to keep > deciding whether I needed to pluralize. I remember spending too much > time trying to straighten out a scaffold I created named "series". It > created a model named "Serie"! I shouldn't have

[Rails] Rails' inflections are messy

Yesterday, I opened a GitHub Issue about moving Rails inflections to an initializer. The idea wasn't received well, understandably, as generating a large initializer with new Rails apps is pretty unappealing. However, the core members seemed open to the