On 10/21/07, DHH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > After spotting this, it seems like the return false part is redundant > and that we instead could just assume that a filter wants to halt if > performed? is true after it has run.
This makes sense to me also. I can't imagine a scenario when I render or redirect in a filter where it makes sense to continue with the action. Does positive feedback for this change mean you'll consider dropping the old way of halting filters? Personally I've never felt that "false" was a bad value and I liked that it was chosen for halting. I don't think it has ever inadvertently halted the chain for me -- really, what are the chances of putting a method that returns boolean as the last statement in a filter? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
