On 18 August 2010 13:42, Marnen Laibow-Koser <[email protected]> wrote: > Colin Law wrote: >> On 17 August 2010 23:02, Marnen Laibow-Koser <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> No. �Don't. �It's a bad idea. �It should never be necessary. �Did you >>> read the link I posted? >> >> Marnen, I am not sure what you are saying should never be necessary. >> Suppose I have named_scope_a and named_scope_b. Are you saying it >> should never be necessary to find the set of records that includes all >> those in _a and those in _b? > > No. I am saying that it should never be possible -- or necessary -- to > do Person.scope_a.and_some_more_records . IMHO, that defeats the > purpose of named_scopes, because the results of the scope chain are no > longer guaranteed to be within scope_a. That's dangerous. If this > syntax were possible, then there would be no obvious difference between > a proper chain like Person.red_hair.blue_eyes and an improper chain like > Person.red_hair.oh_and_everyone_else_too.
Right, understood. > [...] > I'd actually support a syntax for union queries such as > Person.union_scope(:scope_a, :scope_b). This makes it obvious that it > is not a simple scope chain, while still being simple to call. Is that not what the OP was asking for in the original post to quote from there: > Is it possible to have two named scopes that can be joined using OR condition. To which you replied: > Goodness, I hope not. That would be a terrible misuse of named_scopes. Colin -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" 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-talk?hl=en.
