Comments on: New naming scheme for Rails Partials?

By: Reid

Reid — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 15:02:44 +0000

Why have any special naming scheme at all? Why treat partials differently at all? I’ve never understood this.

By: james

james — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 18:37:33 +0000

Good point Tim.

Lets make the extension smaller though, ‘ptl’ seems good to me.

somepartial.ptl.html.erb could work.

But that makes me wonder, why is .erb on the end in the first place? Most editors syntax highlight based on the last extension.

Seems like somepartial.ptl.erb.html would make more sense.

By: Tim Pope

Tim Pope — Thu, 22 May 2008 17:59:44 +0000

pbuilder? phaml? prjs? This does not scale!

What about somepartial.partial.html.erb? One more extension couldn’t hurt!

By: Darcy Laycock

Darcy Laycock — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 08:32:52 +0000

I agree with the notion that the underscore prefix for partials is kind of sucky (although I’ve gotten used to it) but I disagree with the suggestion to shift it to the last part of the filename (e.g. perb). For me it just feels like it voids the purpose (well, to a degree atleast) of using the .. syntax.

To be honest, I think a seperate partials folder (which it looks in automatically) would be a better idea but even that has flaws.