On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 8:43:06 PM UTC-7, Janko Marohnić wrote: > > I think it would be good to have these validations, although I also > personally didn't need them yet. One use case I can think of is validating > that a number isn't negative, which IMO is a very common requirement. > > I would just suggest a slight modification to Jeremy's idea. As a person > who graduated mathematics, it's unintuitive for me to think of a "greater > than or equal" operator >= as "not less than". It's just that when I was > reading these two, it took me some time to figure out what do they mean, > even though I knew that they're either >= or <=. > > I would propose that instead of "validates_not_less_than" and > "validates_not_greater_than", we have "validates_greater_or_equal" and > "validates_less_or_equal". But I wouldn't be unhappy if the first one > stays. Now it makes sense when I read it, it just didn't the first time. > > Janko >
Nobody has spoken up against this, so I'm OK with a feature like this going in. I haven't really decided on method names for the >= and <= methods. I don't want validates_greater_than_or_equal or similar, it's just too long. validates_greater_or_equal seems odd when you have validates_greater_than, and validates_greater is odd as well. Maybe validates_at_least and validates_at_most? I'm open to other options. 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 https://groups.google.com/group/sequel-talk. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
