I gave this a lot of thought, and I have one modification of my previous idea could work, that we remove "_than":
validates_greater validates_greater_or_equal validates_less validates_less_or_equal The only problem is that it maybe sounds ambiguous regarding arguments, in comparison to validates_greater_than and validates_less_than which are explicit. Another idea: validates_greater_than validates_min[imum] validates_less_than validates_max[imum] This came to mind when I saw the existing validates_min_length and validates_max_length validation methods. I thought about validates_at_least and validates_at_most, and maybe one downside is that in english these phrases are often used in context which is not related to numbers and inequality. But I definitely like that it's short and simple. Regards, Janko > On 31 Mar 2016, at 02:09, Jeremy Evans <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 a topic in the Google > Groups "sequel-talk" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sequel-talk/EMrbjLFrJpA/unsubscribe > <https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sequel-talk/EMrbjLFrJpA/unsubscribe>. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to > [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sequel-talk > <https://groups.google.com/group/sequel-talk>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. -- 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.
