+1 for existing_record? On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Mislav Marohnić <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 13:12, Olly Legg <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> It is along the same lines as the invalid? method. It adds a more >> readable method for the opposite functionality. > > > The name "saved_record?" might be misleading -- developers might think that > this method returns false before the "save" method was called and true after > the call: > > user.saved_record? # => false > user.save > user.saved_record? # => true > > Of course, this is not what the method does ("dirty?" should be used for > this). > > Why not "existing_record?" > > user = User.new > user.existing_record? # => false > user.save > user.existing_record? # => true > > Sounds much better. > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
