And I am also super confused as to the notion of 'memorising'. What does that mean? Kids memorise the alphabet and times tables, what does that metaphor mean in terms of Ruby and Ruby on Rails? Memorising is a process of repeatedly iterating through a series that must eventually be held in one's memory. Does Rails have some neural process of educating itself in neural memorising? Liz
On Tuesday, September 1, 2015 at 9:04:59 AM UTC-4, Colin Law wrote: > > On 1 September 2015 at 13:29, tamouse pontiki <tamous...@gmail.com > <javascript:>> wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Colin Law <cla...@gmail.com > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> > >> On 29 August 2015 at 16:08, tamouse pontiki <tamous...@gmail.com > <javascript:>> > >> wrote: > >> > can you memoize the result of test? assuming it wouldn't change > between > >> > callbacks? otherwise, write one callback and perform all the tests, > >> > including the action check for only show inside it? > >> > >> Yes I could do either of those but neither is aesthetically pleasing, > >> which is why I wondered whether there was a better solution. Will > >> probably plump for the first as the second filter would have to be > >> called something like > >> f1_unless_test_and_f2_if_show_unless_test > >> for it to make any sense when read as f1 and f2 are unrelated. > > > > > > I completely agree with the lack of aesthetics. > > > > Since f1 and f2 are completely unrelated, except for being gated by > test?, > > I'd opt for keeping their invocation separate. Temporal coupling isn't > > useful coupling. > > > > Sorry, I've got nothing else. :( > > OK, thanks. I have gone for memorising the intermediate values in the > test filter as I know they are not going to change within a request. > I had hoped there might be some clever way of massaging the > before_filter syntax that would provide a solution but I suspect that > is not possible. > > Cheers > > Colin > > > > > Tamara > > > >> > On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Colin Law <cla...@gmail.com > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Is there a more efficient way of coding this? > >> >> > >> >> before_filter :f1, unless: :test? > >> >> before_filter :f2, only: :show, unless: :test? > >> >> > >> >> I don't want to call test? twice as it is not trivial. > >> >> > >> >> Colin > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups > > "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send > an > > email to rubyonrails-ta...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. > > To post to this group, send email to rubyonra...@googlegroups.com > <javascript:>. > > To view this discussion on the web visit > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rubyonrails-talk/CAHUC_t-iRD59RQg9GaMZEpoqHFivKLyTT3sDAZRZeXrTQe%2BBHQ%40mail.gmail.com. > > > > > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rubyonrails-talk/61869f8d-e577-4ee7-9d8a-0f0bd1c14207%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
