On Feb 16, 7:24 am, Ernie Miller <er...@metautonomo.us> wrote: > > Sound arguments. I didn't implement collapse_wheres, just in case a > witch hunt starts. I was just the first person awake this morning to > pose the answer. :) > > The change probably shouldn't have made it into a point release, but I > do find a certain convenience and logic to it, and I long for a day > when we aren't hacking about trying to make a String and a Hash act > like they're the same thing. Hashes aren't strings, and (IMHO, and I > know there are people on the core team who disagree) it would be > better if we gradually eliminated hand coded SQL string conditions and > relied more heavily on hashes and other data structures, converting > them to SQL when needed via ARel. They're already a last resort in my > own code and I expect them to be relatively brittle when I use them.
I should also probably note that I went off on a sort of anti-String tangent there, unrelated to the topic at hand. So please read: "...a certain convenience and logic to it, and I long for..." as: "...a certain convenience and logic to it. On another note, I long for..." Thanks. :) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en.
