Is this the trick or treat part? ;)
On Oct 30, 1:46 pm, Thanatos <[email protected]> wrote:
> Could we add a some form of Union/Intersect to a conditions hash? so
> it could be User.all(Condition({:active => true}) | Condition
> ({:confirmed => false}))? This seems very unlikely and potentially
> more verbose, but thought I would throw it out there. The default
> would be to AND together, you could use |/& for union/intersect, and
> could group Condition within another Condition.
>
> Either way, I like it and I think it's a solid improvement!
>
> On Oct 30, 1:34 pm, "Dan Kubb (dkubb)" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Whoops! Tiny correction on the SQL query examples, they should be:
>
> > Union:
>
> > User.all(:active => true) | User.all(:confirmed => false)
> > User.all(:active => true) + User.all(:confirmed => false)
> > # => SELECT * FROM users WHERE active = true OR confirmed = false
>
> > Intersection:
>
> > User.all(:active => true) & User.all(:confirmed => false)
> > # => SELECT * FROM users WHERE active = true AND confirmed = false
>
> > Difference:
>
> > User.all(:active => true) - User.all(:confirmed => false)
> > # => SELECT * FROM users WHERE active = true AND NOT(confirmed =
> > false)
>
> > That's what I get for cutting and pasting ;)
>
> > --
>
> > Dan
> > (dkubb)
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"DataMapper" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/datamapper?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
