This one: http://rails.lighthouseapp.com/projects/8994/tickets/2228-activerecordbasesaved
Looks like we have three different patches for the same purpose. Hackers unite! My vote is still for "existing_record?" :) On Mar 18, 4:16 pm, RSL <[email protected]> wrote: > was it this patch here? > > http://rails.lighthouseapp.com/projects/8994/tickets/2089-add-arbasej... > > RSL > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 11:11 AM, José Valim <[email protected]> wrote: > > > +1 for existing_record?. > > > I think I already saw a patch about "existing_record?" in lighthouse. > > > On Mar 18, 4:04 pm, 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
