On Friday, September 6, 2013 8:15:00 AM UTC-7, Rob Miller wrote:
>
> Thanks, that's great.
>
> Is there any way to invert the :conditions hash (that is, to be able to
> use a != or NOT IN in one of the conditions)? It's obviously possible to
> do with a block, but I was just wondering if I could do it with the same
> eager loading benefits and terser syntax.
Well, you could probably do:
:conditions=>Sequel.~(:post_type=>'attachment')
However, that would not affect eager graphing (only hashes or arrays of two
element arrays are automatically used), so you would have to use the
:graph_block option.
For a while I have been considering the following API to make this easier:
:conditions=>{:post_type=>Sequel.some_method_name{|v| Sequel.~(v,
'attachment')}}
When Sequel would go to literalize this, it would recognize the object
returned by Sequel.some_method_name, and would call the related block with
the associated key (:post_type in this case), and then literalize the
output of whatever was returned. This type of API would allow you to use
the :conditions hash for complex conditions that cannot currently be
expressed.
Unfortunately, I haven't thought up a suitable method name for this. I
also haven't fully convinced myself that it is a wise idea in general, as
the extra power may not be worth the extra complexity.
Thanks,
Jeremy
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sequel-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].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sequel-talk.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
