On 12/14/05, Francois Beausoleil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hey ! > > 2005/12/9, Francois Beausoleil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > 2005/12/7, Francois Beausoleil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > In the end, we're trying to keep the principle of least surprise > > > active. What's less suprising: > > > > So, what do we do ? We could also take the status quo, and just add > > the patch as-is, meaning relationships would prevent reusing existing > > method names, but columns are not. > > Any takers on this ?
What if the patch were the 'full bonanza', combining both of the earlier ones, with a special exception for the 'type' column, since that one would be a hassle, and is going away soon via a Ruby update anyway? Even better, these checks could also be added to the generator script. Is that too draconian? Personally, I think this can be a source of very frustrating bugs to Rails newcomers, and it would be better to err on the side of caution. --Wilson. _______________________________________________ Rails-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails-core
