On Fri, 3 Aug 2007, Tarmo T?nav wrote: > > Hi, > > Have you created a ticket for this?
No, hence my remark about wet paint. I've not sent any patches to rails yet, so I'm not ready to plunge in the deep end yet either... > > I don't see a problem with having this functionality, but your > proposed interface seems a bit strange. > > Why do you really need the :silent, and :silence arguments? Trying to avoid some mysterious boolean parameter: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000430.html > They seem to create redundancy: silence(:silence), and don't > really provide additional useful information. On or off would be weird for something that turns output off: are you turning the offness on, or the onness on? This seemed the least ambiguous thing I could come up with. But this is another reason I didn't send it as a straight patch, there's probably a better, clearer interface to this simple functionality than is dreamt of in my philosophy.... > > I'd leave the argument boolean only. "silence(false)" and > "silence(true)" or just "silence" all seem obvious in what > they do, that is enable or disable silence. But which way round??? Yes, one can look up the default, but frankly I'd rather not. > > I'm not sure if there is a need for it, but silence() could actually > support nesting, so you could enable it inside another block Yes, I'd not really considered that much, but finer grained control would be a good thing. > that disables it. All this would require is adding a "when false" > case into this silence implementation which enables some higher > logging level. > > Actually, to take this further, the silence method could take > a logging level as a parameter instead of a boolean. This way > you could arbitrarily change the logging level for code blocks Well, at the risk of getting pecked to death by the Duck Typists we could check the type of it. > and also have nesting support. Although in that case the name > of the method should probably be changed as well. I'm really trying to leave this so existing code can be just changed slightly when I want logging on, despite its author turning it off. Changing the name would be a bigger change in code I want to have utilize this. I'd really like to leave the name the same and have it backwards compatible if I can. > > just my 2 EURO > Thank you, Hugh --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
