Julian, Have you done any benchmark testing on using the &: method? I would be curious as to why you say it's slower.
As for uglier - I think that's a personal preference. I personally would never recommend chaining 3 methods together as you did for fear that one would fail causing the infamous "undefined method ... for nil". To my eyes, the map.(&:email) is very clean and easy to read without a bunch of nasty |v| v.email, etc. I would be curious about performance tests though since you say it's slower. I haven't noticed any major performance hit, but I've never really tested. -- Josh http://iammrjoshua.com Julian Leviston wrote: > Actually it MUST if you're doing not null queries. <> won't work for > null > > Blog: http://random8.zenunit.com/ > Learn rails: http://sensei.zenunit.com/ -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
