Given I’m feeling ambivalent at best about such a change, I don’t think a PR is worth the time. Appreciate the discussion nonetheless!
> On 18 Mar 2019, at 1:40 am, Walter Lee Davis <[email protected]> wrote: > > Not really. I guess it would just fall under POLS to allow it to work. The > documentation and method you have now is clear, and since there's no way I > can think of to allow for chained scopes with this new syntax, all it would > really be is a sugar for the lowest-hanging option. I could take a whack at a > PR for this if you think it makes sense, but I'm not entirely sold on its > necessity, either. > > Walter > >> On Mar 17, 2019, at 12:56 AM, Pat Allan <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Walter, >> >> This isn’t currently possible, though certainly it wouldn’t be hard to add >> that capability in, as you’ve noted. Right now I’m on the fence about >> whether I’d accept such a patch though - I like the idea of having one clear >> interface for such things (though I know I’ve not always followed that >> approach in the past!), and the only benefit I can think of at the moment is >> saving a few characters. >> >> Are there other reasons around why this feature would be useful? >> >> Cheers, >> >> — >> Pat >> >>> On 17 Mar 2019, at 6:34 am, Walter Lee Davis <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Would it be possible to allow the scope method in real time indexing to >>> accept the name of a scope on the indexed model? I'd like to be able to use >>> >>> scope :published >>> >>> rather than >>> >>> scope { Speech.published } >>> >>> I got an error indicating that scope expects a block (1 variable rather >>> than 0 passed) so it occurs to me that it may be possible to wrap the >>> current behavior in if block_given? and then drop back to >>> >>> the_inferred_model.call scope_argument >>> >>> or [whatever actually works with models and scopes and isn't `send`] >>> >>> Any thoughts about this? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Walter >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "Thinking Sphinx" 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/thinking-sphinx. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Thinking Sphinx" 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/thinking-sphinx. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Thinking Sphinx" 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/thinking-sphinx. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Thinking Sphinx" 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/thinking-sphinx. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
