> It occurs to me now that you could solve this another way, too. Simply
> give the two buttons different names, and test for the presence of the
> name, not its value.
I thought of this too (and actually used this solution in a related
project, just to verify that it works). I didn't like it so much from a
viewpoint of style, if we check for presence of the keys instead of the
value of a field. Of course, this is a matter of taste, and at least it
is much simpler to understand on the HTML side, compared to having two
extra hidden fields.
I think there is no solution which I would *really* find satisfying, so
maybe I will just go for the one which is least ugly. :-D
Thank you a lot for providing such an elaborate example!!!!
Ronald
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rubyonrails-talk/c7dbbefee879db897a79b30b0d86b1b1%40ruby-forum.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
