I also don't understand what they mean since the example seems to contradict it...
On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 5:24:16 PM UTC+8, Paul Leader wrote: > > It is useful in a small number of situations, mostly where you need to > ensure that two different references to the same object actually refer to > the same instance. I've only needed to use it twice, both times were where > we have callbacks updating multiple related objects based on data held in > each other. > > Anyway, if anyone else does understand what that caveat actually means I'd > appreciate an explanation. > > On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 4:17:22 AM UTC, Greg Donald wrote: >> >> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 4:09 AM, Paul Leader <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > Perhaps I'm bing a bit thick and missing something obvious (possible), >> but I >> > found the caveats listed in section 3.5 of the Associations Rails Guide >> > badly worded and confusing. >> > >> > The section gives an example with a has_many <-> belongs_to >> relationship is >> > setup with inverse associations on both side, but then states the >> caveat >> > "For belongs_to associations, has_many inverse associations are >> ignored." >> > >> > Could someone actually explain what that means in concrete terms? The >> > example and the caveat appear to be contradictory. If the caveat is >> correct >> > then I'm not sure I understand how the example works. >> >> I've never needed :inverse_of. Looks like academic masturbation to me. >> >> >> -- >> Greg Donald >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rubyonrails-talk/c7974de4-f687-40f5-849d-c5d9ab416440%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
