On Mar 22, 2:45 pm, Nels Nelson <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mar 21, 4:13 pm, elskwid <[email protected]> wrote: > > > You mention 'least surprise' but I would contend that modifying Sequel > > in such a way is more surprising than having some Ruby code that any > > rubyist would be able to understand. > > Hi Don, forum, > I hate to keep harping on this, but I've been mulling over what you > said. That is, that modifying Sequel in such a way is more surprising > than having some Ruby code that any rubyist would be able to > understand. > > Would it be such a troubling thing if Sequel could optionally disable > implicit dataset assignments? It would be a matter of specifying the > option when defining a model. > > Surely the following example is naive, but here it is: > > base.rb.diff :https://gist.github.com/882106 > model.rb.diff :https://gist.github.com/882096 > > Now, one could define models in this manner :https://gist.github.com/882096 > > Just an idea. :-\
If you really must do this, you don't actually need to modify Sequel. Instead of: class Foo < Sequel::Model end do: Foo = Class.new(Sequel::Model) class Foo end Problem solved. Just make sure you call Foo.set_dataset before attempting to use Foo. It's quite possible you'll have problems if you do this. For example, if your primary key isn't "id" and you try to create associations. I think you've been given enough warnings. You might as well try to do what you originally wanted to do anyway (using this code), and see what happens. Jeremy -- 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.
