while we're at it, I propose to alias :new_record? as :new? and :existing_record? as :exists?
Cheers, Lawrence Pit > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
