To expand on my earlier message (I should have read the entire thread
first), I agree with Thanatos that we need something within the actual
conditions hash without having to duplicate the finder syntax. It's
maybe a small thing, but having to duplicate the entire query call
just to add a simple OR query seems like a bit of problem.
On Oct 30, 2009, at 10:46 AM, Thanatos wrote:
>
> Could we add a some form of Union/Intersect to a conditions hash? so
> it could be User.all(Condition({:active => true}) | Condition
> ({:confirmed => false}))? This seems very unlikely and potentially
> more verbose, but thought I would throw it out there. The default
> would be to AND together, you could use |/& for union/intersect, and
> could group Condition within another Condition.
>
> Either way, I like it and I think it's a solid improvement!
>
> On Oct 30, 1:34 pm, "Dan Kubb (dkubb)" <dan.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Whoops! Tiny correction on the SQL query examples, they should be:
>>
>> Union:
>>
>> User.all(:active => true) | User.all(:confirmed => false)
>> User.all(:active => true) + User.all(:confirmed => false)
>> # => SELECT * FROM users WHERE active = true OR confirmed = false
>>
>> Intersection:
>>
>> User.all(:active => true) & User.all(:confirmed => false)
>> # => SELECT * FROM users WHERE active = true AND confirmed = false
>>
>> Difference:
>>
>> User.all(:active => true) - User.all(:confirmed => false)
>> # => SELECT * FROM users WHERE active = true AND NOT(confirmed =
>> false)
>>
>> That's what I get for cutting and pasting ;)
>>
>> --
>>
>> Dan
>> (dkubb)
> >
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"DataMapper" group.
To post to this group, send email to datamapper@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
datamapper+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/datamapper?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
