On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 4:09 AM, Paul Leader <[email protected]> wrote: > Perhaps I'm bing a bit thick and missing something obvious (possible), but I > found the caveats listed in section 3.5 of the Associations Rails Guide > badly worded and confusing. > > The section gives an example with a has_many <-> belongs_to relationship is > setup with inverse associations on both side, but then states the caveat > "For belongs_to associations, has_many inverse associations are ignored." > > Could someone actually explain what that means in concrete terms? The > example and the caveat appear to be contradictory. If the caveat is correct > then I'm not sure I understand how the example works.
I've never needed :inverse_of. Looks like academic masturbation to me. -- Greg Donald -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
