Search Results

Search found 69 results on 3 pages for 'plural'.

Page 1/3 | 1 2 3  | Next Page >

  • Plural blocktrans problem with Django

    - by jorde
    I'm trying to translate a small block of text using Django's build in i18n. I don't know why but the following won't show up in different language: {% if store.rating_count %} {% blocktrans with store.rating_count as count %} {{ count }} review {% plural %} {{ count }} reviews {% endblocktrans %} {% else %} {% trans "No reviews" %} {% endif %} And a snipplet from my django.po (created with makemessages): #: templates/reviews/category.html:65 #, python-format msgid "%(count)s review" msgid_plural "%(count)s reviews" msgstr[0] "%(count)s arvostelu" msgstr[1] "%(count)s arvostelua" Other strings translate fine from the same template. I have rerun compilemessages few times.

    Read the article

  • Enum Naming Convention - Plural

    - by o.k.w
    I'm asking this question despite having read similar but not exactly what I want at http://stackoverflow.com/questions/495051/c-naming-convention-for-enum-and-matching-property I found I have a tendency to name enums in plural and then 'use' them as singular, example: public enum EntityTypes { Type1, Type2 } public class SomeClass { /* some codes */ public EntityTypes EntityType {get; set;} } Of course it works and this is my style, but can anyone find potential problem with such convention? I do have an "ugly" naming with the word "Status" though: public enum OrderStatuses { Pending, Fulfilled, Error, Blah, Blah } public class SomeClass { /* some codes */ public OrderStatuses OrderStatus {get; set;} } Additional Info: Maybe my question wasn't clear enough. I often have to think hard when naming the variables of the my defined enum types. I know the best practice, but it doesn't help to ease my job of naming those variables. I can't possibly expose all my enum properties (say "Status") as "MyStatus". My question: Can anyone find potential problem with my convention described above? It is NOT about best practice. Question rephrase: Well, I guess I should ask the question this way: Can someone come out a good generic way of naming the enum type such that when used, the naming of the enum 'instance' will be pretty straightforward?

    Read the article

  • Rails controller method going to plural form

    - by Jty.tan
    I'm new to rails! Ok, I am trying to set up a user signup form. It is mapped as a singular resource in the routes map.resource :user And trying to create the user through the console works fine. the controller code for user's signup is as follows: def signup @user = User.new#(params[:user]) end def create @user = User.new(params[:user]) #debugger if request.post? if @user.save session[:user] = User.authenticate(@user.login, @user.password) flash[:message] = "Signup successful" redirect_to registries_path else flash[:warning] = "Signup unsuccessful" #redirect_to 'user/signup' end end end The signup view is as follows (and this is where i think something is going wrong) <% form_tag user_path do %> <p>User creation.</p> <p><%= error_messages_for 'user' %></p> <p> <label>Username:</label> <%= text_field_tag 'login', nil, :size => 20, :maxlength => 20 %> </p> <p> <label>Password:</label> <%= password_field_tag 'password', nil, :size => 20, :maxlength => 20 %> </p> <p> <label>Password confirmation:</label> <%= password_field_tag 'password_confirmation', nil, :size => 20, :maxlength => 20 %> </p> <p> <label>Email:</label> <%= text_field_tag 'email' %> </p> <p><%= submit_tag 'Signup' %></p> <% end %> Now, that page renders just fine. I've called the form on the "user_path" which is singular (i think?). But when I hit the submit button, it gives me an error saying that uninitialized constant UsersController the occurence of the error makes sense, since User is meant to be singular, so if it is trying to call the Users controller, it should be chucking an error. When I checked the server log, it shows this message: Processing ApplicationController#create (for 127.0.0.1 at 2010-05-08 16:26:14) [POST] Parameters: {"commit"=>"Signup", "password_confirmation"=>"[FILTERED]", "action"=>"create", "authenticity_token"=>"yOcHY+rMjaqmu9HS8EwnDqJKbc0Zxictc0y4dtD26ac=", "controller"=>"users", "login"=>"bob", "password"=>"[FILTERED]", "email"=>"[email protected]"} NameError (uninitialized constant UsersController): In the params, I can see that it is calling the "users" controller. But I'm not sure how to fix that, or what is causing it to call the "users" controller as opposed to the "user" controller. Any ideas? Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • Grammatically correct double-noun identifiers, plural versions

    - by Michal Czardybon
    Consider compounds of two nouns, which in natural English would most often appear in the form "noun of noun", e.g. "direction of light", "output of a filter". When programming we usually write "LightDirection" and "FilterOutput". Now, I have a problem with plural nouns. There are two cases: 1) singular of plural e.g. "union of (two) sets", "intersection of (two) segments" Which is correct, SetUnion and SegmentIntersection or SetsUnion and SegmentsIntersection? 2) plural of plural There are two subcases: (a) Many elements, each having many related elements, e.g. "outputs of filters" (b) Many elements, each having single related element, e.g. "directions of vectors" Shell I use FilterOutputs and VectorDirections or FiltersOutputs and VectorsDirections? I suspect correct is the first version (FilterOutupts, VectorDirections), but I think it may lead to ambiguities, e.g. FilterOutputs - many outputs of a single filter or many outputs of many filters? LineSegmentProjections - projections of many segments or many projections of a single segment?

    Read the article

  • I am wondering how the Plural-Field generic is to be rendered in the REST OpenSocial 1.0 API specifi

    - by DaveGrahamOrg
    In the OpenSocial Data specificaiton 1.0 for a Person object (social profile data) it includes the use of a generic called Plural-Field. The spec can be found at: http://opensocial-resources.googlecode.com/svn/spec/1.0/Social-Data.xml#Person In the 1.0 data specification there is no XSD and no examples showing the use of this generic Plural-Field. After puzzeling the spec for some time I think I might understand the user of this generic. I was hoping that someone could confirm or correct my understanding. For example the accounts field is a generic Plural-Field<Account> while the activities field is Plural-Field <string>. Am I right in assuming that the result XML would look like: <accounts> <Plural-Field> <primary>true</primary> <type>ntlm</type> <value> <Account> <domain>MYDOMAIN</domain> <userid>MYDOMAIN\davegraham</userid> <username>davegraham</username> </Account> </value> </Plural-Field> <Plural-Field> <primary>false</primary> <type>claims</type> <value> <Account> <domain>i:0#.f|claimsDomain</domain> <userid>i:0#.f|claimsDomain|davegraham</userid> <username>davegraham</username> </Account> </value> </Plural-Field> </accounts> <activities> <Plural-Field> <primary>true</primary> <type>ntlm</type> <value>cycling</value> </Plural-Field> <Plural-Field> <primary>false</primary> <type>claims</type> <value>swiming</value> </Plural-Field> </activities> Am I right in my interpretation of the spec?

    Read the article

  • Table and column naming conventions when plural and singular forms are odd or the same

    - by Superstringcheese
    In my search I found mostly arguments for whether to use plurality in database naming conventions, and ways to handle it in either case. I have decided I prefer plural table names, so I don't want to argue that. I need to represent an animal's species and genus and so on in a database. The plural and singular form for 'species' are the same, and the plural of 'genus' is 'genera'. I think I can get by with: Table: Genera | Column: Genus But I'm unsure how I should handle: Table: Species | Column: Species If I really wanted to be lazy about this I'd just name them 'species specie' and 'genuses genus', but I would prefer to read them in their correct forms. Any advice would be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Technique to remove common words(and their plural versions) from a string

    - by Jake M
    I am attempting to find tags(keywords) for a recipe by parsing a long string of text. The text contains the recipe ingredients, directions and a short blurb. What do you think would be the most efficient way to remove common words from the tag list? By common words, I mean words like: 'the', 'at', 'there', 'their' etc. I have 2 methodologies I can use, which do you think is more efficient in terms of speed and do you know of a more efficient way I could do this? Methodology 1: - Determine the number of times each word occurs(using the library Collections) - Have a list of common words and remove all 'Common Words' from the Collection object by attempting to delete that key from the Collection object if it exists. - Therefore the speed will be determined by the length of the variable delims import collections from Counter delim = ['there','there\'s','theres','they','they\'re'] # the above will end up being a really long list! word_freq = Counter(recipe_str.lower().split()) for delim in set(delims): del word_freq[delim] return freq.most_common() Methodology 2: - For common words that can be plural, look at each word in the recipe string, and check if it partially contains the non-plural version of a common word. Eg; For the string "There's a test" check each word to see if it contains "there" and delete it if it does. delim = ['this','at','them'] # words that cant be plural partial_delim = ['there','they',] # words that could occur in many forms word_freq = Counter(recipe_str.lower().split()) for delim in set(delims): del word_freq[delim] # really slow for delim in set(partial_delims): for word in word_freq: if word.find(delim) != -1: del word_freq[delim] return freq.most_common()

    Read the article

  • GWT i18n - Plural Forms doesn't work at all?

    - by PEZ
    I'm using GWT internationalization Messages. The documentation for Plural Forms says this should work: @DefaultMessage("{0} {1,number} hours {2}") @PluralText({"one", "an hour"}) String hours(String prefix, @PluralCount int count, String suffix); Well, it doesn't. Whatever value of count it still delivers DefaultMessage (e.g. "1 hours ago"). Same if I use a .properties file: hours[one]=an hour hours[few]=some hours hours={0} {1,number} hours {2} Is there a bug in the docs or in GWT (I'm using GWT 2.0.3) or in me? If any of the two former, anyone knows of a workaround?

    Read the article

  • Plural to Singular conversion trouble in Rails Migrations?

    - by Earlz
    Hi, I'm a beginner at Ruby On Rails and am trying to get a migration to work with the name Priorities So, here is the code I use in my migration: class Priorities < ActiveRecord::Migration def self.up create_table :priorities do |t| t.column :name, :string, :null => false, :limit => 32 end Priority.create :name => "Critical" Priority.create :name => "Major" Priority.create :name => "Minor" end def self.down drop_table :priorities end end This results in the following error though: NOTICE: CREATE TABLE will create implicit sequence "priorities_id_seq" for serial column "priorities.id" NOTICE: CREATE TABLE / PRIMARY KEY will create implicit index "priorities_pkey" for table "priorities" rake aborted! An error has occurred, this and all later migrations canceled: uninitialized constant Priorities::Priority Is this some problem with turning ies to y for converting something plural to singular?

    Read the article

  • Rails using plural table names even though I told it to use singular

    - by Jason Swett
    I tried to run rake test:profile and I got this error: ... Table 'mcif2.accounts' doesn't exist: DELETE FROM `accounts` I know accounts doesn't exist. It's called account. I know Rails uses plural table names by default but here's what my config/environment.rb looks like: # Load the rails application require File.expand_path('../application', __FILE__) # Initialize the rails application McifRails::Application.initialize! ActiveRecord::Base.pluralize_table_names = false And here's what db/schema.rb looks like: ActiveRecord::Schema.define(:version => 0) do create_table "account", :force => true do |t| t.integer "customer_id", :limit => 8, :null => false t.string "account_number", :null => false t.integer "account_type_id", :limit => 8 t.date "open_date", :null => false So I don't understand why Rails still wants to call it accounts sometimes. Any ideas? If it helps give any clues at all, here are the results of grep -ir 'accounts' *.

    Read the article

  • Singular or Plural Nouns as file names for better Search & SEO friendlyness? [closed]

    - by Sam
    Possible Duplicate: Should I use singular or plural nouns in a domain name and why? Dear folks, two scenarios where file names should be best representing the search volume by audiences searching for it. Scenario 1 website.org/en/logo.php website.org/en/brochure.php website.org/en/poster.php website.org/en/design.php OR Scenario 2 website.org/en/logos.php website.org/en/brochures.php website.org/en/posters.php website.org/en/designs.php Q1. What do you intuitivly think would be the best? Q2. What do the facts in general show? people search for singular or plural in search? Q3. Do Search engines have common rule of thumb for this? Q4. Should I pick either and go with either scenario consistently or does it depend on the word? Thanks very much for your ideas/suggestions. I reall don't know which one to go for.

    Read the article

  • ASP.net MVC - OneToOne relationship with pluralized nomenclature

    - by ludicco
    Hi, I have an OneToOne relationship between my models Account and Company the table names are Accounts and Companies respectively. Here is a brief screenshot of the structure: http://cl.ly/1AEU Everything works well, but mysteriously when I use the OneToOne associations I have accessors like: var db = new DB(); var account = db.Accounts.First(); var company = account.Companies; // note the plural not the singular accessor So, what's happing is that even if using OneToOne association, I still get the plural accessor with "companies" and not "company", if it this is a pure object representation and not an EntitySet generated in case when it s an oneToMany relationship. Is there a way to get this nomenclature to be applied properly? Thanks a lot

    Read the article

  • Ruby on Rails - differentiating plural vs singular resource in a REST API

    - by randombits
    I'm working on building the URLs for my REST API before I begin writing any code. Rails REST magic is fantastic, but I'm slightly bothered the formatting of a URL such as: http://myproject/projects/5 where Project is my resource and 5 is the project_id. I think if a user is looking to retrieve all of their projects, then a respective HTTP GET http://myproject/projects makes sense. However if they're looking to retrieve information on a singular resource, such as a project, then it makes sense to have http://myproject/project/5 vs http://myproject/projects/5. Is it best to avoid this headache, or do some of you share a similar concern and even better - have a working solution?

    Read the article

  • Table Naming Dilemma: Singular vs. Plural Names

    - by ProfK
    Convention has it that table names should be the singular of the entity that they store attributes of. I dislike any T-SQL that requires square brackets around names, but I have renamed a Users table to the singular, forever sentencing those using the table to sometimes have to use brackets. My gut feel is that it is more correct to stay with the singular, but my gut feel is also that brackets indicate undesirables like column names with spaces in them etc. Should I stay, or should I go?

    Read the article

  • GWT Internationalization - Plural Forms

    - by Drejc
    I have read and executed following instructions found on GWT pages But somehow the "[none]" form does not return the correct output, rather it returns the default output. While all the other like [one], [two], [many] work perfectly fine. Has anyone come across this problem, and how can I solve it?

    Read the article

  • Is it reasonable for REST resources to be singular and plural?

    - by Evan
    I have been wondering if, rather than a more traditional layout like this: api/Products GET // gets product(s) by id PUT // updates product(s) by id DELETE // deletes (product(s) by id POST // creates product(s) Would it be more useful to have a singular and a plural, for example: api/Product GET // gets a product by id PUT // updates a product by id DELETE // deletes a product by id POST // creates a product api/Products GET // gets a collection of products by id PUT // updates a collection of products by id DELETE // deletes a collection of products (not the products themselves) POST // creates a collection of products based on filter parameters passed So, to create a collection of products you might do: POST api/Products {data: filters} // returns api/Products/<id> And then, to reference it, you might do: GET api/Products/<id> // returns array of products In my opinion, the main advantage of doing things this way is that it allows for easy caching of collections of products. One might, for example, put a lifetime of an hour on collections of products, thus drastically reducing the calls on a server. Of course, I currently only see the good side of doing things this way, what's the downside?

    Read the article

  • Singular method name for single object argument, plural for a list?

    - by nasufara
    I'm having a problem with naming a method for a database application. In my Database instance, I have a method that can remove an Agreement object from the database. However, I want to be able to remove multiple Agreements at once, to be able to use transactions. The problem is that I also have an overload to remove a single Agreement object. Essentially, my structure is like this: public class Database { // ... public void RemoveAgreement(Agreement a) { // ... } public void RemoveAgreement(IEnumerable<Agreement> agreements) { // ... } } But this can be confusing, as the overload with the list of Agreements has a singular name, despite being inherently plural. My question is, how should I structure this? Should I have two overloads with the name RemoveAgreement(), or RemoveAgreements()? Or should I use two separate methods, instead of overloads? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Rails Scaffold problem # undefined method `edit_pais_path'

    - by Bruno Cordeiro
    I created a scaffold of named pais (This is a word in Portuguese of Brazil and is the same that country), i created using the follow command: ruby script\generate scaffold pais name:string abreviattion:string First I changed the inflections to my local idiom, like that: inflect.plural /^([a-zA-z]*)s$/i, '\1ses' #The plural of Pais is Paises And when I tryied to open the page on http://localhost:3000/paises I'm receiving the follow error: undefined method `edit_pais_path' for #<ActionView::Base:0x387fdf4> Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Am I missing a pattern?

    - by Ryan Pedersen
    I have a class that is a singleton and off of the singleton are properties that hold the instances of all the performance counters in my application. public interface IPerformanceCounters { IPerformanceCounter AccountServiceCallRate { get; } IPerformanceCounter AccountServiceCallDuration { get; } Above is an incomplete snippet of the interface for the class "PerformanceCounters" that is the singleton. I really don't like the plural part of the name and thought about changing it to "PerformanceCounterCollection" but stopped because it really isn't a collection. I also thought about "PerformanceCounterFactory" but it is really a factory either. After failing with these two names and a couple more that aren't worth mentioning I thought that I might be missing a pattern. Is there a name that make sense or a change that I could make towards a standardized pattern that would help me put some polish on this object and get rid of the plural name? I understand that I might be splitting hairs here but that is why I thought that the "Programmers" exchange was the place for this kind of thing. If it is not... I am sorry and I will not make that mistake again. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • In MVC framworks (such as Ruby on Rails), does usually Model spell as singular and controller and vi

    - by Jian Lin
    I usually see Ruby on Rails books using script/generate model Story name:string link:string which is a singular Story, while when it is controller script/generate controller Stories index then the Story now is Stories, which is plural. Is this a standard on Ruby on Rails? Is it true in other MVC frameworks too, like CakePHP, Symfony, Django, or TurboGears? I see that in the book Rails Space, the controller is also called User, which is the same as the model name, and it is the only exception I see. Update: also, when scaffold is done on Ruby on Rails, then automatically, the model is singular and the controller and view are both plural.

    Read the article

  • PLINQO Not Naming Entities Correctly

    - by Clever Human
    I have my CSP file set up to use TableNaming and EntityNaming as Singular: <TableNaming>Singular</TableNaming> <EntityNaming>Singular</EntityNaming> Yet the generated entities are plural. For instance, I have a table called Companies. The generated name is "Companies" I expected "Company" (like LinqToSql did -- I am upgrading a project.) I have a table named EntityStorageItems (no relation to these entities.) The generated name is "EntityStorageItems" I expected the entity name to be "EntityStorageItem" IOW, it is creating plural names. And I need them to be singular (to work with existing code.) Am I doing something wrong?

    Read the article

  • EF 4’s PluralizationService Class: A Singularly Impossible Plurality

    - by Ken Cox [MVP]
    Entity Framework’s new 4.0 designer does its best to generate correct plural and singular forms of object names. This magic is done through the PluralizationService Class found in the System.Data.Entity.Design.PluralizationServices namespace and in the System.Data.Entity.Design.dll assembly. [Before you ask… Yes, I’ll post my example page, the service, and the project source code as soon as my ISP makes ASP.NET 4 RTM available. Stay tuned.] Anyone who speaks English is brutally aware of the ridiculous...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Chrome Web Browser Messages: Some Observations

    - by ultan o'broin
    I'm always on the lookout for how different apps handle errors and what kind of messages are shown (I probably need to get out more), I use this 'research' to reflect on our own application error messages patterns and guidelines and how we might make things better for our users in future. Users are influenced by all sorts of things, but their everyday experiences of technology, and especially what they encounter on the internet, increasingly sets their expectations for the enterprise user experience too. I recently came across a couple of examples from Google's Chrome web browser that got me thinking. In the first case, we have a Chrome error about not being able to find a web page. I like how simple, straightforward messaging language is used along with an optional ability to explore things a bit further--for those users who want to. The 'more information' option shows the error encountered by the browser (or 'original' error) in technical terms, along with an error number. Contrasting the two messages about essentially the same problem reveals what's useful to users and what's not. Everyone can use the first message, but the technical version of the message has to be explicitly disclosed for any more advanced user to pursue further. More technical users might search for a resolution, using that Error 324 number, but I imagine most users who see the message will try again later or check their URL again. Seems reasonable that such an approach be adopted in the enterprise space too, right? Maybe. Generally, end users don't go searching for solutions based on those error numbers, and help desk folks generally prefer they don't do so. That's because of the more critical nature of enterprise data or the fact that end users may not have the necessary privileges to make any fixes anyway. What might be more useful here is a link to a trusted source of additional help provided by the help desk or reputable community instead. This takes me on to the second case, this time more closely related to the language used in messaging situations. Here, I first noticed by the using of the (s) approach to convey possibilities of there being one or more pages at the heart of the problem. This approach is a no-no in Oracle style terms (the plural would be used) and it can create translation issues (though it is not a show-stopper). I think Google could have gone with the plural too. However, of more interest is the use of the verb "kill", shown in the message text and as an action button label. For many writers, words like "kill" and "abort" are to be avoided as they can give offense. I am not so sure about that judgment, as really their use cannot be separated from the context. Certainly, for more technical users, they're fine and have been in use for years, so I see no reason to avoid these terms if the audience has accepted them. Most end users too, I think would find the idea of "kill" usable and may even use the term in every day speech. Others might disagree--Apple uses a concept of Force Quit, for example. Ultimately, the only way to really know how to proceed is to research these matter by asking users of differing roles and expertise to perform some tasks, encounter these messages and then make recommendations based on those findings for our designs. Something to do in 2011!

    Read the article

1 2 3  | Next Page >