Trace of template inclusion: /app/views/store/index.rhtml
I've compared what I have with the book and they seem the same. I'm
thinking that either I'm missing something (very possible) or maybe the
error is actually being generated somewhere else but I'm very green (a
newbie)...
Trace of template inclusion: /app/views/store/index.rhtml
I've compared what I have with the book and they seem the same. I'm
thinking that either I'm missing something (very possible) or maybe the
error is actually being generated somewhere else but I'm very green (a
newbie)...
You are missing one character from the book. On the last line it's ":class", not "class". The latter is a reserved word in Ruby with special meaning, thus the problem.
Hope that helps.
James Edward Gray II
···
On Jan 13, 2006, at 3:14 PM, bimo remus wrote:
I am doing a tutorial from the Thomas~Hansson book and am getting this
error:
I know this has become our standard response, but the issue above is a Ruby syntax mistake. It has nothing to do with Rails. Is that not squarely in our area of expertise here?
I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm honestly trying to understand when we should forward them and when we should not.
James Edward Gray II
···
On Jan 13, 2006, at 3:17 PM, Austin Ziegler wrote:
On 13/01/06, bimo remus <bmoremus@yahoo.com> wrote:
I am doing a tutorial from the Thomas~Hansson book and am getting this
error:
Trace of template inclusion: /app/views/store/index.rhtml
I've compared what I have with the book and they seem the same. I'm
thinking that either I'm missing something (very possible) or maybe the
error is actually being generated somewhere else but I'm very green (a
newbie)...
By the way, you will be doing yourself a service to get a text editor
that includes syntax highlighting for Ruby and rhtml. Little mistakes
like this will be much easier to spot.
I know jEdit, Textmate and RadRails all support rhtml highlighting.
Jon
···
On Sat, 2006-01-14 at 06:20 +0900, James Edward Gray II wrote:
On Jan 13, 2006, at 3:14 PM, bimo remus wrote:
> I am doing a tutorial from the Thomas~Hansson book and am getting this
> error:
>
> Extracted source (around line #17):
>
> 14: <%= link_to 'Add to Cart',
> 15: {:action => 'add_to_cart',
> 16: :id => product },
> 17: class => 'addtocart' %>
> 18: </br>
> 19: </td>
> 20: </tr>
You are missing one character from the book. On the last line it's
":class", not "class". The latter is a reserved word in Ruby with
special meaning, thus the problem.
You are missing one character from the book. On the last line it's
":class", not "class". The latter is a reserved word in Ruby with
special meaning, thus the problem.
You are missing one character from the book. On the last line it's
":class", not "class". The latter is a reserved word in Ruby with
special meaning, thus the problem.
As well as the closing brace after 'addtocart'
No, I don't think so. Here's the call again:
<%= link_to 'Add to Cart', {:action => 'add_to_cart', :id => product }, class => 'addtocart' %>
Speaking of which, I'll have to get a multimode.el for XEmacs somewhere. Making rhtml-mode shouldn't bee too difficult.
David Vallner
···
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 22:35:27 +0100, Jonathan Leighton <lists@turnipspatch.com> wrote:
On Sat, 2006-01-14 at 06:20 +0900, James Edward Gray II wrote:
By the way, you will be doing yourself a service to get a text editor
that includes syntax highlighting for Ruby and rhtml. Little mistakes
like this will be much easier to spot.
I know jEdit, Textmate and RadRails all support rhtml highlighting.
I know this has become our standard response, but the issue above is
a Ruby syntax mistake. It has nothing to do with Rails. Is that not
squarely in our area of expertise here?
I know this has become our standard response, but the issue above is
a Ruby syntax mistake. It has nothing to do with Rails. Is that not
squarely in our area of expertise here?
Yes, it's a Ruby syntax mistake. However, it's *not* code that's
runnable without Rails.
I'd say that it's the fact that Rails already has a large support
community that we should point them in that direction. A lot of
libraries aren't as easily supported, as if the developers may not get
to the questions in a timely fashion, etc etc.
I think though it seems a bit harsh, sending people to the Rails
mailing list actually does a service, rather than a disservice. If
they did not know it existed before, they find a great new resource,
otherwise, they just know where to ask next time.
Though, I usually try to offer whatever help I can with a question,
THEN point people to the rails list, just to be nice
···
On 1/13/06, James Edward Gray II <james@grayproductions.net> wrote:
On Jan 13, 2006, at 4:59 PM, Austin Ziegler wrote:
> On 13/01/06, James Edward Gray II <james@grayproductions.net> wrote:
>> On Jan 13, 2006, at 3:17 PM, Austin Ziegler wrote:
>>> This is better posted to the Rails list:
>>> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
>> Is it, this time?
>>
>> I know this has become our standard response, but the issue above is
>> a Ruby syntax mistake. It has nothing to do with Rails. Is that not
>> squarely in our area of expertise here?
>
> Yes, it's a Ruby syntax mistake. However, it's *not* code that's
> runnable without Rails.
I see a lot of code posted here that requires external libraries and
we fix that. Is there a reason Rails is different?
I know this has become our standard response, but the issue above is
a Ruby syntax mistake. It has nothing to do with Rails. Is that not
squarely in our area of expertise here?
Yes, it's a Ruby syntax mistake. However, it's *not* code that's
runnable without Rails.
I see a lot of code posted here that requires external libraries and
we fix that. Is there a reason Rails is different?
I'd say that it's the fact that Rails already has a large support
community that we should point them in that direction. A lot of
libraries aren't as easily supported, as if the developers may not get
to the questions in a timely fashion, etc etc.
I think though it seems a bit harsh, sending people to the Rails
mailing list actually does a service, rather than a disservice. If
they did not know it existed before, they find a great new resource,
otherwise, they just know where to ask next time.
Though, I usually try to offer whatever help I can with a question,
THEN point people to the rails list, just to be nice
Once again, GBrown beats me to it. I agree.
If a person wants to use Rails to build their web app and they aren't interested in the Ruby that Rails is built in, I'm comfortable with that. Referring them to the Rails list where they can talk Rails without having to filter out all of the noise about that "Ruby" thing is the best we can do.
If, on the other hand, they want to fix up some Ruby code or learn more about what makes Rails tick then I think they've come to the right place. I'll be surprised on the day that I see this list turn someone away that needs help with their Ruby code just because it's for use in a Rails app.
Matthew
···
On 1/13/06, James Edward Gray II <james@grayproductions.net> wrote:
On Jan 13, 2006, at 4:59 PM, Austin Ziegler wrote:
On 13/01/06, James Edward Gray II <james@grayproductions.net> wrote:
On Jan 13, 2006, at 3:17 PM, Austin Ziegler wrote:
For some reason, I think "Google Brown" when I see "GBrown". Like
it's some Google project or something.
···
On 1/13/06, Matthew Desmarais <desmarm@gmail.com> wrote:
Gregory Brown wrote:
> On 1/13/06, James Edward Gray II <james@grayproductions.net> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 13, 2006, at 4:59 PM, Austin Ziegler wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 13/01/06, James Edward Gray II <james@grayproductions.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jan 13, 2006, at 3:17 PM, Austin Ziegler wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This is better posted to the Rails list:
>>>>> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
>>>>>
>>>> Is it, this time?
>>>>
>>>> I know this has become our standard response, but the issue above is
>>>> a Ruby syntax mistake. It has nothing to do with Rails. Is that not
>>>> squarely in our area of expertise here?
>>>>
>>> Yes, it's a Ruby syntax mistake. However, it's *not* code that's
>>> runnable without Rails.
>>>
>> I see a lot of code posted here that requires external libraries and
>> we fix that. Is there a reason Rails is different?
>>
>
> I'd say that it's the fact that Rails already has a large support
> community that we should point them in that direction. A lot of
> libraries aren't as easily supported, as if the developers may not get
> to the questions in a timely fashion, etc etc.
>
> I think though it seems a bit harsh, sending people to the Rails
> mailing list actually does a service, rather than a disservice. If
> they did not know it existed before, they find a great new resource,
> otherwise, they just know where to ask next time.
>
> Though, I usually try to offer whatever help I can with a question,
> THEN point people to the rails list, just to be nice
>
Once again, GBrown beats me to it. I agree.
It kind of reminds me of M. Bison in street fighter.
Though it would be interesting if I were a google project.
My pockets are not overflowing with money, so i know that can't be true
···
On 1/14/06, Joe Van Dyk <joevandyk@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/13/06, Matthew Desmarais <desmarm@gmail.com> wrote:
> Gregory Brown wrote:
> Once again, GBrown beats me to it. I agree.
For some reason, I think "Google Brown" when I see "GBrown". Like
it's some Google project or something.
On 1/14/06, Joe Van Dyk <joevandyk@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/13/06, Matthew Desmarais <desmarm@gmail.com> wrote:
Gregory Brown wrote:
Once again, GBrown beats me to it. I agree.
For some reason, I think "Google Brown" when I see "GBrown". Like
it's some Google project or something.
It kind of reminds me of M. Bison in street fighter.
Though it would be interesting if I were a google project.
My pockets are not overflowing with money, so i know that can't be true
Sorry if I caused any confusion. For what it's worth, I think that Greg Brown would make a fine Google project although I'm not sure what it is that he would do.
Sorry if I caused any confusion. For what it's worth, I think that Greg Brown would make a fine Google project although I'm not sure what it is that he would do.
I'm not sure, but I think a good slogan would be, "What can
Brown do for you?"
A google / UPS merger in the works? I doubt I'd be creative enough to
figure that one out
···
On 1/14/06, Hal Fulton <hal9000@hypermetrics.com> wrote:
Matthew Desmarais wrote:
>
> Sorry if I caused any confusion. For what it's worth, I think that Greg
> Brown would make a fine Google project although I'm not sure what it is
> that he would do.
>
I'm not sure, but I think a good slogan would be, "What can
Brown do for you?"
On 1/14/06, Hal Fulton <hal9000@hypermetrics.com> wrote:
Matthew Desmarais wrote:
Sorry if I caused any confusion. For what it's worth, I think that Greg
Brown would make a fine Google project although I'm not sure what it is
that he would do.
I'm not sure, but I think a good slogan would be, "What can
Brown do for you?"
A google / UPS merger in the works? I doubt I'd be creative enough to
figure that one out
