Hey
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:04 PM, Piotr Sarnacki dro...@gmail.com wrote:
While technically you could say that false is present, it would be
really unintuitive for most of the people as present? is supposed to be
just opposite of blank? and is used to check for truthiness. Additionally
As you can see here:
https://github.com/rails/rails/blob/master/activesupport/lib/active_support/core_ext/object/blank.rb#L55,
blank? is also implemented in FalseClass to always return true, so yes, it
was deliberate :)
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 8:17 AM, Amitav Mohanty
While technically you could say that false is present, it would be
really unintuitive for most of the people as present? is supposed to be
just opposite of blank? and is used to check for truthiness. Additionally
present? is used in Rails app for a long time, so even if part of Rails
Core had
I understand where you're coming from,
and I completely disagree
false is blank, but it's not nil,
however, in some cases, falseness should not be validated
validates_presence_of :aggrees_with_contract* is correct, requires the
user to check the contract*
validates_presence_of
Hey
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 8:06 PM, James Pinto tap...@gmail.com wrote:
I understand where you're coming from,
and I completely disagree
false is blank, but it's not nil,
Well I think since it is a value, it should not be considered blank.
however, in some cases, falseness should not
On Jun 25, 2013, at 7:36 AM, James Pinto wrote:
I understand where you're coming from,
and I completely disagree
false is blank, but it's not nil,
however, in some cases, falseness should not be validated
validates_presence_of :aggrees_with_contract is correct, requires the user
to
