On Thursday, September 13, 2012 5:38:57 PM UTC-4, Masterleep wrote: > Excellent! I verified that your fix did eliminate the redundancy on these > field name strings in the case I was studying (from 15 extra strings per > instance down to 2, where the 2 were attribute values, not field names). >
Attribute values would be a good case for the StringPool I guess, even though I still think that would be something that should be introduced in Ruby, not Rails, and because of string's bang methods altering the object itself so a lot of existing user code would assume object_id equivalence of a string and the object produced by one of that string's bang methods, so it would be a major change. I know you wanted to focus on AR, but if you did only focus on AR attribute values and just had a StringPool for them, then AR attribute values would be object equivalent and have the same string bang method wierdness, but other strings wouldn't act that way, and this would be much more evil than doing it in Ruby. -- 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/-/s-96wVnEJ0AJ. 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.
