I'd guess methods count is relevant based on this pull request:

https://github.com/rails/rails/pull/5763

Em 31-05-2012 10:49, Maksym Melnychok escreveu:
absolutely agree with all points. i just didn't know if methods count
argument is relevant at all. imo it's a nice side-effect of proposed
change.

On Thursday, May 31, 2012 3:45:23 PM UTC+2, richard schneeman wrote:

    I'm -1 on a has_* method

    If we want to kill ? on non boolean attributes we should encourage
    standard @post.url.blank? and @post.url.present? be used instead.
    The originally proposed change makes sense to me. The question
    mark character adds nice semantics to boolean attributes. I agree
    it's not clear what exactly that would do on non-boolean
    attributes. Removing the questionable methods would help decrease
    the method count.

    Does anyone really need to use: @post.id <http://post.id>?

-- Richard Schneeman
    @schneems <http://twitter.com/schneems>

    On Thursday, May 31, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Jeremy Walker wrote:



    On 31 May 2012 14:23, Sam Oliver <[email protected]
    <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
    On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:12 PM, James B. Byrne
    <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

    > I would generate attribute query methods only for boolean
    attributes.

    I am not sure that I understand your point, but in Ruby
    anything that
    is neither nil nor false is true.  Thus returning the url
    string, if
    not nil, is the same as saying that it is true but also allows
    access
    to the actual data without having to send another message.

    I think Max's point is that "post.visible?" could be read as
    "post is visible?" but "post is url?" carries a different meaning.

    Maybe have query methods for boolean attributes
    and prefixed query methods for not. e.g.
    post.visible?
    post.has_url?

    Or maybe leave the currently methods as they are, but add new
    prefixed methods, with different prefixes for boolean methods, e.g.
    post.is_visible?
    post.has_url?

    Sam
-- 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]
    <mailto:[email protected]>.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
    [email protected]
    <mailto:rubyonrails-core%[email protected]>.
    For more options, visit this group at
    http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en
    <http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en>.

-- 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]
    <mailto:[email protected]>.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
    [email protected]
    <mailto:[email protected]>.
    For more options, visit this group at
    http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en
    <http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en>.


On Thursday, May 31, 2012 3:45:23 PM UTC+2, richard schneeman wrote:

    I'm -1 on a has_* method

    If we want to kill ? on non boolean attributes we should encourage
    standard @post.url.blank? and @post.url.present? be used instead.
    The originally proposed change makes sense to me. The question
    mark character adds nice semantics to boolean attributes. I agree
    it's not clear what exactly that would do on non-boolean
    attributes. Removing the questionable methods would help decrease
    the method count.

    Does anyone really need to use: @post.id <http://post.id>?

-- Richard Schneeman
    @schneems <http://twitter.com/schneems>

    On Thursday, May 31, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Jeremy Walker wrote:



    On 31 May 2012 14:23, Sam Oliver <[email protected]
    <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
    On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:12 PM, James B. Byrne
    <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

    > I would generate attribute query methods only for boolean
    attributes.

    I am not sure that I understand your point, but in Ruby
    anything that
    is neither nil nor false is true.  Thus returning the url
    string, if
    not nil, is the same as saying that it is true but also allows
    access
    to the actual data without having to send another message.

    I think Max's point is that "post.visible?" could be read as
    "post is visible?" but "post is url?" carries a different meaning.

    Maybe have query methods for boolean attributes
    and prefixed query methods for not. e.g.
    post.visible?
    post.has_url?

    Or maybe leave the currently methods as they are, but add new
    prefixed methods, with different prefixes for boolean methods, e.g.
    post.is_visible?
    post.has_url?


--
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.

Reply via email to