I use it. It makes total sense to me. If you have a piece of paper with a list of 10 blank lines, how do you know there are exactly 10 blank lines instead of 3 or 7 or 13?
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Michael Boutros <michael.bout...@gmail.com>wrote: > Do you think anyone currently uses #blank? on enumerables in its current > state? It doesn't make sense the way it is right now. Imagine a piece of > paper with a list of 10 blank lines. Wouldn't you call that a blank list? > > > On Monday, July 9, 2012 10:50:34 AM UTC-4, Xavier Noria wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Michael Boutros < >> michael.bout...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Yes. >> >> >> Your implementation makes sense. I mean, I believe that if blank? was >> defined on enumerables as all?(&:blank?) from the very first day, one could >> have accepted that definition just fine. >> >> But the current definition also makes sense to me. >> >> Since this is a fundamental predicate in Active Support that has had this >> semantic since forever, this modification would be backwards incompatible, >> and the current definition is also just fine in my opinion, I think we >> should keep it the way it is. >> >> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rubyonrails-core/-/WL4-tEq6TT0J. > > 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. > -- 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.
