This is a good move, and I feel ActiveRecord before_* filters' support for "false" has bit people just as often.
On Oct 20, 4:43 pm, DHH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We've been wanting to deal with the fact that filters are too easy to > inadvertently halt when the last statement returns false for some > reason. A few suggestions were discussed, like throwing symbols, but > after a thorough inspection of a ton of real filters in real > applications, we realized that we already have a pattern: When a > filter renders or redirects, it's always followed by returning false. > > 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. > > But before we make this happen for Rails 2.0, I thought it would be a > good idea to hear if there's any reasonable claims as to when you'd > want to either render/redirect, but still allow the chain to continue, > or do neither and still want halting. Emphasis is on reasonable, I > don't mind obscure edge cases breaking. This is 2.0, after all. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
