On Saturday 04 September 2010, Colin Law wrote: > On 4 September 2010 09:14, Michael Schuerig <mich...@schuerig.de> wrote: > > On Friday 03 September 2010, Marnen Laibow-Koser wrote: > >> Marnen Laibow-Koser wrote: > >> > >> Well, you learn something new every day! I found the Ambiguous > >> Groups article on the Web and found that the behavior I thought > >> was standard -- returning the first value in the case of multiple > >> values -- is actually a MySQL quirk (ironic when you consider > >> that I haven't used MySQL in years). Back to the drawing board. > > > > I did tell you that you ought to understand a problem before > > jumping to solutions, didn't I? I have to admit I was piqued by > > your reaction to my original question: it was bold -- and > > ignorant. You don't have to answer every question in this mailing > > list single-handedly. > > I think that antagonising those trying to help will not enamour you > to others reading your question. There is nothing wrong with being > bold when answering questions and no-one knows everything.
You are right in general, but not in every particular case. I'd like to claim that this particular case does not fit. Re-read the discussion an judge for yourself. I may not like to be told that my code is smelly and my design design is broken by someone who clearly does not understand the setting -- but then, who does like such a thing? It's great to have around people who are trying to be helpful. It's event better, if they go about it without patronizing those who ask. > To > suggest that someone is ignorant because they are unaware of that > particular mysql quirk is absolutely ludricrous. You're getting it wrong. I wouldn't expect anybody to know about exactly how MySQL's implementation of GROUP BY behaves. MySQL allows grouping expressions that are not allowed by the SQL standard and it behaves in predictable ways when using them. This has nothing to do with my question, though, as it doesn't involve MySQL in any way. Now, if someone *does* know about MySQL's specific behaviour and take it for standard, they might be tempted to base a solution on that. Still, as I said more than once, I know what I want to do at the SQL/database level. I don't see how to express it elegantly in ActiveRecord. Michael -- Michael Schuerig mailto:mich...@schuerig.de http://www.schuerig.de/michael/ -- 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-t...@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.
