Yeah, I agree. Here's an example hacked together that fakes union/ intersection. But because it is using hashes, doesn't maintain the correct order. Interesting none-the-less:
http://gist.github.com/222596 Tony (Thanatos) On Oct 30, 2:03 pm, "Dan Kubb (dkubb)" <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanatos, > > > 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}))? > > Yeah, that seems more verbose that what I'm planning, so I'd probably > say no for now. > > I like the idea of encouraging people to build up queries using class > methods too. In AR when you used named scopes one of the better > approaches I've seen is writing a named scope for each distinct state, > and then chaining them together when building the queries. That's the > sort of thing I'd like to encourage when using DM, except with the > simpler class methods that return a Collection for each state. > > > Either way, I like it and I think it's a solid improvement! > > Glad you like it! > > -- > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
