Jeremy Evans wrote:
> Doing the following:
>
> DB << "create table t (a text, b text)" << "insert into t values
> ('a', 'b')"
>
> Wouldn't be any different from:
>
> DB << "create table t (a text, b text)"
> DB << "insert into t values ('a', 'b')"
>
> In terms of what is sent to the database.
I was thinking in terms of ruby style rather than how queries are sent
to the database, but I can't really come up with any strong sylistic
reasons, other that "that's how most[1] other #<< methods work", which
is pretty weak!
Maybe that argument, weak as it is, would be best stated in terms of
duck typing. If you write code like this:
def send_command_to_destination(dst, cmd)
# log cmd and dst
# do some other generic stuff
# ...
dst << cmd
end
Then wouldn't you want the return value to be dst, whether dst was a
pipe or a database or simply an array used to accumulate commands? Just
in case someone's code was written for pipes, and someone else wanted to
use a database instead...
[1] Fixnum#<< is an exception, of course. But IO, String, Array are not.
--
vjoel : Joel VanderWerf : path berkeley edu : 510 665 3407
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sequel-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/sequel-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
