> I think in this case data integrity and the principle of least > surprise should be prioritized.
I appreciate your passion for having a clear API, but you might not want to use PoLS as a way of supporting your argument. Among other people, Matz has distanced himself from this saying as it holds an assumption of universality that is rarely, if ever, present. The current behavior conforms with PoLS for me. It doesn't for you. Thus, there is no single PoLS for the issue, making the argument moot. Again, I do appreciate caring about the details. And it's great to see enthusiasm for improving Rails on all fronts. But I think we can get higher yields elsewhere after grabbing the low-hanging fruit of updating the documentation. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" 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/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
