Re: [Rails-core] Attribute query methods and semantics
On May 31, 2012, at 8:58 AM, Maksym Melnychok wrote: Does anyone else finds attribute query methods semantically confusing? Hi, Consider this code: post = Post.new(:visible = true, :url = http://com;) if post.visible? puts ima visible! end if post.url? puts ima url! (wait wat? o_0) end Does this feel right to you? In case with post.url? i read it as Hey post object, are you an url? which is apparently not what the code will do. So it seems like semantically perfect flag checks go together with totally confusing(for a reader) way of checking whether an attribute is present or not. I would generate attribute query methods only for boolean attributes. One use that hasn't been mentioned previously - passing method names to things like :if, :unless etc in validations. With the ? version, this can be pretty short: validates_presence_of :some_attribute, :unless = :some_other_attribute? The no-? version doesn't do the right thing in many cases (since empty strings evaluate to true), and using present? instead requires a Proc. Not certain if this is a sufficient argument for the existence of the ? suffix, but worth thinking about. --Matt Jones -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Ruby on Rails: Core group. 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.
[Rails-core] Attribute query methods and semantics
Does anyone else finds attribute query methods semantically confusing? Hi, Consider this code: post = Post.new(:visible = true, :url = http://com;) if post.visible? puts ima visible! end if post.url? puts ima url! (wait wat? o_0) end Does this feel right to you? In case with post.url? i read it as Hey post object, are you an url? which is apparently not what the code will do. So it seems like semantically perfect flag checks go together with totally confusing(for a reader) way of checking whether an attribute is present or not. I would generate attribute query methods only for boolean attributes. Regards, Max -- 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/-/YqYSFrZrLWIJ. 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.
Re: [Rails-core] Attribute query methods and semantics
On Thu, May 31, 2012 08:58, Maksym Melnychok wrote: Does anyone else finds attribute query methods semantically confusing? Hi, Consider this code: post = Post.new(:visible = true, :url = http://com;) if post.visible? puts ima visible! end if post.url? puts ima url! (wait wat? o_0) end Does this feel right to you? In case with post.url? i read it as Hey post object, are you an url? which is apparently not what the code will do. So it seems like semantically perfect flag checks go together with totally confusing(for a reader) way of checking whether an attribute is present or not. I would generate attribute query methods only for boolean attributes. I am not sure that I understand your point, but in Ruby anything that is neither nil nor false is true. Thus returning the url string, if not nil, is the same as saying that it is true but also allows access to the actual data without having to send another message. -- *** E-Mail is NOT a SECURE channel *** James B. Byrnemailto:byrn...@harte-lyne.ca Harte Lyne Limited http://www.harte-lyne.ca 9 Brockley Drive vox: +1 905 561 1241 Hamilton, Ontario fax: +1 905 561 0757 Canada L8E 3C3 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Ruby on Rails: Core group. 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.
Re: [Rails-core] Attribute query methods and semantics
my point is about semantics, not truthiness/falseness of values post.visible? - is asking post object if it is visible because it has a flag(boolean attribute) named 'visible' post.url? - is checking if attribute named 'url' is present or not, and that is exactly what i find confusing because even though syntactically it is identical to flag check, semantically this line looks like we're asking post object if it is a url which makes no sense. Regards, Max On Thursday, May 31, 2012 3:12:21 PM UTC+2, byrnejb wrote: On Thu, May 31, 2012 08:58, Maksym Melnychok wrote: Does anyone else finds attribute query methods semantically confusing? Hi, Consider this code: post = Post.new(:visible = true, :url = http://com;) if post.visible? puts ima visible! end if post.url? puts ima url! (wait wat? o_0) end Does this feel right to you? In case with post.url? i read it as Hey post object, are you an url? which is apparently not what the code will do. So it seems like semantically perfect flag checks go together with totally confusing(for a reader) way of checking whether an attribute is present or not. I would generate attribute query methods only for boolean attributes. I am not sure that I understand your point, but in Ruby anything that is neither nil nor false is true. Thus returning the url string, if not nil, is the same as saying that it is true but also allows access to the actual data without having to send another message. -- *** E-Mail is NOT a SECURE channel *** James B. Byrnemailto:byrn...@harte-lyne.ca Harte Lyne Limited http://www.harte-lyne.ca 9 Brockley Drive vox: +1 905 561 1241 Hamilton, Ontario fax: +1 905 561 0757 Canada L8E 3C3 -- 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/-/0YtbyF6g470J. 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.
Re: [Rails-core] Attribute query methods and semantics
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:12 PM, James B. Byrne byrn...@harte-lyne.cawrote: I would generate attribute query methods only for boolean attributes. I am not sure that I understand your point, but in Ruby anything that is neither nil nor false is true. Thus returning the url string, if not nil, is the same as saying that it is true but also allows access to the actual data without having to send another message. I think Max's point is that post.visible? could be read as post is visible? but post is url? carries a different meaning. Sam -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Ruby on Rails: Core group. 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.
Re: [Rails-core] Attribute query methods and semantics
On 31 May 2012 14:23, Sam Oliver s...@samoliver.com wrote: On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:12 PM, James B. Byrne byrn...@harte-lyne.cawrote: I would generate attribute query methods only for boolean attributes. I am not sure that I understand your point, but in Ruby anything that is neither nil nor false is true. Thus returning the url string, if not nil, is the same as saying that it is true but also allows access to the actual data without having to send another message. I think Max's point is that post.visible? could be read as post is visible? but post is url? carries a different meaning. Maybe have query methods for boolean attributes and prefixed query methods for not. e.g. post.visible? post.has_url? Or maybe leave the currently methods as they are, but add new prefixed methods, with different prefixes for boolean methods, e.g. post.is_visible? post.has_url? Sam -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Ruby on Rails: Core group. 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. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Ruby on Rails: Core group. 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.
Re: [Rails-core] Attribute query methods and semantics
I'm -1 on a has_* method If we want to kill ? on non boolean attributes we should encourage standard @post.url.blank? and @post.url.present? be used instead. The originally proposed change makes sense to me. The question mark character adds nice semantics to boolean attributes. I agree it's not clear what exactly that would do on non-boolean attributes. Removing the questionable methods would help decrease the method count. Does anyone really need to use: @post.id? -- Richard Schneeman @schneems (http://twitter.com/schneems) On Thursday, May 31, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Jeremy Walker wrote: On 31 May 2012 14:23, Sam Oliver s...@samoliver.com (mailto:s...@samoliver.com) wrote: On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:12 PM, James B. Byrne byrn...@harte-lyne.ca (mailto:byrn...@harte-lyne.ca) wrote: I would generate attribute query methods only for boolean attributes. I am not sure that I understand your point, but in Ruby anything that is neither nil nor false is true. Thus returning the url string, if not nil, is the same as saying that it is true but also allows access to the actual data without having to send another message. I think Max's point is that post.visible? could be read as post is visible? but post is url? carries a different meaning. Maybe have query methods for boolean attributes and prefixed query methods for not. e.g. post.visible? post.has_url? Or maybe leave the currently methods as they are, but add new prefixed methods, with different prefixes for boolean methods, e.g. post.is_visible? post.has_url? Sam -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Ruby on Rails: Core group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com (mailto:rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com). To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com (mailto:rubyonrails-core%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com). For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Ruby on Rails: Core group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com (mailto:rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com). To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com (mailto:rubyonrails-core+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com). For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Ruby on Rails: Core group. 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.
Re: [Rails-core] Attribute query methods and semantics
+1 to Richard. Keep ? for booleans, get rid of the others and use .blank? and .present? as needed. -- Jarrett Meyer Email: jarrettme...@gmail.com Web: JarrettMeyer.com http://jarrettmeyer.com Twitter: @jarrettmeyer http://twitter.com/jarrettmeyer On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Richard Schneeman richard.schnee...@gmail.com wrote: I'm -1 on a has_* method If we want to kill ? on non boolean attributes we should encourage standard @post.url.blank? and @post.url.present? be used instead. The originally proposed change makes sense to me. The question mark character adds nice semantics to boolean attributes. I agree it's not clear what exactly that would do on non-boolean attributes. Removing the questionable methods would help decrease the method count. Does anyone really need to use: @post.id? -- Richard Schneeman @schneems http://twitter.com/schneems On Thursday, May 31, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Jeremy Walker wrote: On 31 May 2012 14:23, Sam Oliver s...@samoliver.com wrote: On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:12 PM, James B. Byrne byrn...@harte-lyne.cawrote: I would generate attribute query methods only for boolean attributes. I am not sure that I understand your point, but in Ruby anything that is neither nil nor false is true. Thus returning the url string, if not nil, is the same as saying that it is true but also allows access to the actual data without having to send another message. I think Max's point is that post.visible? could be read as post is visible? but post is url? carries a different meaning. Maybe have query methods for boolean attributes and prefixed query methods for not. e.g. post.visible? post.has_url? Or maybe leave the currently methods as they are, but add new prefixed methods, with different prefixes for boolean methods, e.g. post.is_visible? post.has_url? Sam -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Ruby on Rails: Core group. 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. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Ruby on Rails: Core group. 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. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Ruby on Rails: Core group. 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. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Ruby on Rails: Core group. 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.
Re: [Rails-core] Attribute query methods and semantics
absolutely agree with all points. i just didn't know if methods count argument is relevant at all. imo it's a nice side-effect of proposed change. On Thursday, May 31, 2012 3:45:23 PM UTC+2, richard schneeman wrote: I'm -1 on a has_* method If we want to kill ? on non boolean attributes we should encourage standard @post.url.blank? and @post.url.present? be used instead. The originally proposed change makes sense to me. The question mark character adds nice semantics to boolean attributes. I agree it's not clear what exactly that would do on non-boolean attributes. Removing the questionable methods would help decrease the method count. Does anyone really need to use: @post.id? -- Richard Schneeman @schneems http://twitter.com/schneems On Thursday, May 31, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Jeremy Walker wrote: On 31 May 2012 14:23, Sam Oliver s...@samoliver.com wrote: On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:12 PM, James B. Byrne byrn...@harte-lyne.cawrote: I would generate attribute query methods only for boolean attributes. I am not sure that I understand your point, but in Ruby anything that is neither nil nor false is true. Thus returning the url string, if not nil, is the same as saying that it is true but also allows access to the actual data without having to send another message. I think Max's point is that post.visible? could be read as post is visible? but post is url? carries a different meaning. Maybe have query methods for boolean attributes and prefixed query methods for not. e.g. post.visible? post.has_url? Or maybe leave the currently methods as they are, but add new prefixed methods, with different prefixes for boolean methods, e.g. post.is_visible? post.has_url? Sam -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Ruby on Rails: Core group. 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. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Ruby on Rails: Core group. 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. On Thursday, May 31, 2012 3:45:23 PM UTC+2, richard schneeman wrote: I'm -1 on a has_* method If we want to kill ? on non boolean attributes we should encourage standard @post.url.blank? and @post.url.present? be used instead. The originally proposed change makes sense to me. The question mark character adds nice semantics to boolean attributes. I agree it's not clear what exactly that would do on non-boolean attributes. Removing the questionable methods would help decrease the method count. Does anyone really need to use: @post.id? -- Richard Schneeman @schneems http://twitter.com/schneems On Thursday, May 31, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Jeremy Walker wrote: On 31 May 2012 14:23, Sam Oliver s...@samoliver.com wrote: On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:12 PM, James B. Byrne byrn...@harte-lyne.cawrote: I would generate attribute query methods only for boolean attributes. I am not sure that I understand your point, but in Ruby anything that is neither nil nor false is true. Thus returning the url string, if not nil, is the same as saying that it is true but also allows access to the actual data without having to send another message. I think Max's point is that post.visible? could be read as post is visible? but post is url? carries a different meaning. Maybe have query methods for boolean attributes and prefixed query methods for not. e.g. post.visible? post.has_url? Or maybe leave the currently methods as they are, but add new prefixed methods, with different prefixes for boolean methods, e.g. post.is_visible? post.has_url? Sam -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Ruby on Rails: Core group. 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. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Ruby on Rails: Core group. 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. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Ruby on Rails: Core group. To view this discussion on
Re: [Rails-core] Attribute query methods and semantics
I'd guess methods count is relevant based on this pull request: https://github.com/rails/rails/pull/5763 Em 31-05-2012 10:49, Maksym Melnychok escreveu: absolutely agree with all points. i just didn't know if methods count argument is relevant at all. imo it's a nice side-effect of proposed change. On Thursday, May 31, 2012 3:45:23 PM UTC+2, richard schneeman wrote: I'm -1 on a has_* method If we want to kill ? on non boolean attributes we should encourage standard @post.url.blank? and @post.url.present? be used instead. The originally proposed change makes sense to me. The question mark character adds nice semantics to boolean attributes. I agree it's not clear what exactly that would do on non-boolean attributes. Removing the questionable methods would help decrease the method count. Does anyone really need to use: @post.id http://post.id? -- Richard Schneeman @schneems http://twitter.com/schneems On Thursday, May 31, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Jeremy Walker wrote: On 31 May 2012 14:23, Sam Oliver s...@samoliver.com mailto:s...@samoliver.com wrote: On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:12 PM, James B. Byrne byrn...@harte-lyne.ca mailto:byrn...@harte-lyne.ca wrote: I would generate attribute query methods only for boolean attributes. I am not sure that I understand your point, but in Ruby anything that is neither nil nor false is true. Thus returning the url string, if not nil, is the same as saying that it is true but also allows access to the actual data without having to send another message. I think Max's point is that post.visible? could be read as post is visible? but post is url? carries a different meaning. Maybe have query methods for boolean attributes and prefixed query methods for not. e.g. post.visible? post.has_url? Or maybe leave the currently methods as they are, but add new prefixed methods, with different prefixes for boolean methods, e.g. post.is_visible? post.has_url? Sam -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Ruby on Rails: Core group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com mailto:rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:rubyonrails-core%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Ruby on Rails: Core group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com mailto:rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:rubyonrails-core+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en. On Thursday, May 31, 2012 3:45:23 PM UTC+2, richard schneeman wrote: I'm -1 on a has_* method If we want to kill ? on non boolean attributes we should encourage standard @post.url.blank? and @post.url.present? be used instead. The originally proposed change makes sense to me. The question mark character adds nice semantics to boolean attributes. I agree it's not clear what exactly that would do on non-boolean attributes. Removing the questionable methods would help decrease the method count. Does anyone really need to use: @post.id http://post.id? -- Richard Schneeman @schneems http://twitter.com/schneems On Thursday, May 31, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Jeremy Walker wrote: On 31 May 2012 14:23, Sam Oliver s...@samoliver.com mailto:s...@samoliver.com wrote: On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:12 PM, James B. Byrne byrn...@harte-lyne.ca mailto:byrn...@harte-lyne.ca wrote: I would generate attribute query methods only for boolean attributes. I am not sure that I understand your point, but in Ruby anything that is neither nil nor false is true. Thus returning the url string, if not nil, is the same as saying that it is true but also allows access to the actual data without having to send another message. I think Max's point is that post.visible? could be read as post is visible? but post is url? carries a different meaning. Maybe have query methods for boolean attributes and prefixed query methods for not. e.g. post.visible? post.has_url? Or maybe leave the currently methods as they are, but add new prefixed methods, with different prefixes for boolean methods, e.g. post.is_visible? post.has_url? -- You received this
Re: [Rails-core] Attribute query methods and semantics
Not using is_ is idiomatic: http://devblog.avdi.org/2011/04/07/rspec-is-for-the-literate/ (look for 'There is a different, but related, effect of using RSpec.') Every Ruby object is truthy or falsey, and so treating them all as possibly boolean is 100% okay as far as I'm concerned. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Ruby on Rails: Core group. 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.
Re: [Rails-core] Attribute query methods and semantics
Actually the query attribute method does more than check if the value is present. It is very useful for legacy databases where the user persist boolean values as [0, 1], [t, f], [true, false] and more. I don't see this being removed from rails or changing your behavior. Also removing it will not decrease the methods count because we still need to generate it for booleans. Rafael Mendonça França http://twitter.com/rafaelfranca https://github.com/rafaelfranca On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas rr.ro...@gmail.com wrote: I'd guess methods count is relevant based on this pull request: https://github.com/rails/rails/pull/5763 Em 31-05-2012 10:49, Maksym Melnychok escreveu: absolutely agree with all points. i just didn't know if methods count argument is relevant at all. imo it's a nice side-effect of proposed change. On Thursday, May 31, 2012 3:45:23 PM UTC+2, richard schneeman wrote: I'm -1 on a has_* method If we want to kill ? on non boolean attributes we should encourage standard @post.url.blank? and @post.url.present? be used instead. The originally proposed change makes sense to me. The question mark character adds nice semantics to boolean attributes. I agree it's not clear what exactly that would do on non-boolean attributes. Removing the questionable methods would help decrease the method count. Does anyone really need to use: @post.id? -- Richard Schneeman @schneems http://twitter.com/schneems On Thursday, May 31, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Jeremy Walker wrote: On 31 May 2012 14:23, Sam Oliver s...@samoliver.com wrote: On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:12 PM, James B. Byrne byrn...@harte-lyne.cawrote: I would generate attribute query methods only for boolean attributes. I am not sure that I understand your point, but in Ruby anything that is neither nil nor false is true. Thus returning the url string, if not nil, is the same as saying that it is true but also allows access to the actual data without having to send another message. I think Max's point is that post.visible? could be read as post is visible? but post is url? carries a different meaning. Maybe have query methods for boolean attributes and prefixed query methods for not. e.g. post.visible? post.has_url? Or maybe leave the currently methods as they are, but add new prefixed methods, with different prefixes for boolean methods, e.g. post.is_visible? post.has_url? Sam -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Ruby on Rails: Core group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.**comrubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.comrubyonrails-core%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** group/rubyonrails-core?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Ruby on Rails: Core group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.**comrubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.comrubyonrails-core+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** group/rubyonrails-core?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en . On Thursday, May 31, 2012 3:45:23 PM UTC+2, richard schneeman wrote: I'm -1 on a has_* method If we want to kill ? on non boolean attributes we should encourage standard @post.url.blank? and @post.url.present? be used instead. The originally proposed change makes sense to me. The question mark character adds nice semantics to boolean attributes. I agree it's not clear what exactly that would do on non-boolean attributes. Removing the questionable methods would help decrease the method count. Does anyone really need to use: @post.id? -- Richard Schneeman @schneems http://twitter.com/schneems On Thursday, May 31, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Jeremy Walker wrote: On 31 May 2012 14:23, Sam Oliver s...@samoliver.com wrote: On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:12 PM, James B. Byrne byrn...@harte-lyne.cawrote: I would generate attribute query methods only for boolean attributes. I am not sure that I understand your point, but in Ruby anything that is neither nil nor false is true. Thus returning the url string, if not nil, is the same as saying that it is true but also allows access to the actual data without having to send another message. I think Max's point is that post.visible? could be read as post is visible? but post is url? carries a different meaning. Maybe have query methods for boolean attributes and prefixed query methods for not. e.g. post.visible? post.has_url? Or maybe leave the currently methods as they are, but add new prefixed
Re: [Rails-core] Attribute query methods and semantics
Em 31-05-2012 11:30, Rafael Mendonça França escreveu: Actually the query attribute method does more than check if the value is present. It is very useful for legacy databases where the user persist boolean values as [0, 1], [t, f], [true, false] and more. I don't see this being removed from rails or changing your behavior. I agree with you on that Also removing it will not decrease the methods count because we still need to generate it for booleans. It would decrease because they would *only* be generated for boolean fields. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Ruby on Rails: Core group. 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.
Re: [Rails-core] Attribute query methods and semantics
@ Rafael Mendonça França
legacy databases storage must be concern of corresponding database
adapter, if a field is of boolean type, whatever that means on storage
level of particular database, that field must be treated as boolean in rails
on the model level.
i'm not suggesting to drop such functionality for boolean attributes, only
for non-booleans where #{attribute}? literally makes no sense when you
read it.
methods count would be decreased because rails would generate query
method only for boolean attributes.
@ Steve Klabnik
syntactically you are correct
but if we decide that there doesn't have to be semantical contribution to
your code from using attribute query methods then #{attribute}? is just
a shortcut for !!#{attribute} - so why do we need it in the first place?
saving 1 character is weird goal here.
if on the other hand we want query methods to provide semantics then
there is obvious conflict with non-boolean fields as semantics there are
different.
On Thursday, May 31, 2012 4:30:20 PM UTC+2, Rafael Mendonça França wrote:
Actually the query attribute method does more than check if the value is
present. It is very useful for legacy databases where the user persist
boolean values as [0, 1], [t, f], [true, false] and more.
I don't see this being removed from rails or changing your behavior.
Also removing it will not decrease the methods count because we still need
to generate it for booleans.
Rafael Mendonça França
http://twitter.com/rafaelfranca
https://github.com/rafaelfranca
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas
rr.ro...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd guess methods count is relevant based on this pull request:
https://github.com/rails/rails/pull/5763
Em 31-05-2012 10:49, Maksym Melnychok escreveu:
absolutely agree with all points. i just didn't know if methods count
argument is relevant at all. imo it's a nice side-effect of proposed
change.
On Thursday, May 31, 2012 3:45:23 PM UTC+2, richard schneeman wrote:
I'm -1 on a has_* method
If we want to kill ? on non boolean attributes we should encourage
standard @post.url.blank? and @post.url.present? be used instead. The
originally proposed change makes sense to me. The question mark character
adds nice semantics to boolean attributes. I agree it's not clear what
exactly that would do on non-boolean attributes. Removing the questionable
methods would help decrease the method count.
Does anyone really need to use: @post.id?
--
Richard Schneeman
@schneems http://twitter.com/schneems
On Thursday, May 31, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Jeremy Walker wrote:
On 31 May 2012 14:23, Sam Oliver s...@samoliver.com wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:12 PM, James B. Byrne
byrn...@harte-lyne.cawrote:
I would generate attribute query methods only for boolean attributes.
I am not sure that I understand your point, but in Ruby anything that
is neither nil nor false is true. Thus returning the url string, if
not nil, is the same as saying that it is true but also allows access
to the actual data without having to send another message.
I think Max's point is that post.visible? could be read as post is
visible? but post is url? carries a different meaning.
Maybe have query methods for boolean attributes and prefixed query
methods for not. e.g.
post.visible?
post.has_url?
Or maybe leave the currently methods as they are, but add new prefixed
methods, with different prefixes for boolean methods, e.g.
post.is_visible?
post.has_url?
Sam
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups Ruby on Rails: Core group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.**comrubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com
.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-core+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.comrubyonrails-core%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
group/rubyonrails-core?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en
.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups Ruby on Rails: Core group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.**comrubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com
.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-core+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.comrubyonrails-core+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
group/rubyonrails-core?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en
.
On Thursday, May 31, 2012 3:45:23 PM UTC+2, richard schneeman wrote:
I'm -1 on a has_* method
If we want to kill ? on non boolean attributes we should encourage
standard @post.url.blank? and @post.url.present? be used instead. The
originally proposed change makes sense to me. The question mark character
adds nice semantics to boolean attributes. I
Re: [Rails-core] Attribute query methods and semantics
but if we decide that there doesn't have to be semantical contribution to
your code from using attribute query methods then #{attribute}? is just
a shortcut for !!#{attribute} - so why do we need it in the first place?
saving 1 character is weird goal here.
It's not saving a character. It's that !! is programmer talk, and ? is
human talk. Ruby prefers human talk.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Ruby
on Rails: Core group.
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.
Re: [Rails-core] Attribute query methods and semantics
Em 31-05-2012 11:48, Maksym Melnychok escreveu:
@ Rafael Mendonça França
legacy databases storage must be concern of corresponding database
adapter, if a field is of boolean type, whatever that means on storage
level of particular database, that field must be treated as boolean in
rails
on the model level.
i'm not suggesting to drop such functionality for boolean attributes, only
for non-booleans where #{attribute}? literally makes no sense when you
read it.
methods count would be decreased because rails would generate query
method only for boolean attributes.
I guess Rafael meant another thing. You have boolean fields in
PostgreSQL but someone might prefer to use some old ANSI types, like
INTEGER for storing such booleans for some reason.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Ruby on
Rails: Core group.
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.
Re: [Rails-core] Attribute query methods and semantics
Em 31-05-2012 11:52, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas escreveu:
Em 31-05-2012 11:48, Maksym Melnychok escreveu:
@ Rafael Mendonça França
legacy databases storage must be concern of corresponding database
adapter, if a field is of boolean type, whatever that means on storage
level of particular database, that field must be treated as boolean
in rails
on the model level.
i'm not suggesting to drop such functionality for boolean attributes,
only
for non-booleans where #{attribute}? literally makes no sense when you
read it.
methods count would be decreased because rails would generate query
method only for boolean attributes.
I guess Rafael meant another thing. You have boolean fields in
PostgreSQL but someone might prefer to use some old ANSI types, like
INTEGER for storing such booleans for some reason.
Actually PG do support the ANSI boolean type. But some will prefer some
other ANSI type because other databases don't support the boolean type:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL:1999http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL:1999#Boolean_data_types
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Ruby on
Rails: Core group.
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.
Re: [Rails-core] Attribute query methods and semantics
And in these cases you don't know if these fields are boolean or not. If
you are choose to store the visible column as string [yes, no] so you
will not have the query method.
I like this method as it is. For me it is very useful and give me the
possibility to not care about what is the datatype of the field.
Rafael Mendonça França
http://twitter.com/rafaelfranca
https://github.com/rafaelfranca
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas
rr.ro...@gmail.com wrote:
Em 31-05-2012 11:48, Maksym Melnychok escreveu:
@ Rafael Mendonça França
legacy databases storage must be concern of corresponding database
adapter, if a field is of boolean type, whatever that means on storage
level of particular database, that field must be treated as boolean in
rails
on the model level.
i'm not suggesting to drop such functionality for boolean attributes, only
for non-booleans where #{attribute}? literally makes no sense when you
read it.
methods count would be decreased because rails would generate query
method only for boolean attributes.
I guess Rafael meant another thing. You have boolean fields in PostgreSQL
but someone might prefer to use some old ANSI types, like INTEGER for
storing such booleans for some reason.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Ruby on Rails: Core group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.**comrubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com
.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-core+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.comrubyonrails-core%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
group/rubyonrails-core?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en
.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Ruby
on Rails: Core group.
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.
Re: [Rails-core] Attribute query methods and semantics
Another way would add another annotation method to ActiveRecord::Base, like:
boolean_field :incomplete, :disabled, :deleted
This would further document the model mapping and would also allow
better semantics.
Not that I really care about this as I don't even use ActiveRecord ;)
Cheers,
Rodrigo.
Em 31-05-2012 11:56, Rafael Mendonça França escreveu:
And in these cases you don't know if these fields are boolean or not.
If you are choose to store the visible column as string [yes, no]
so you will not have the query method.
I like this method as it is. For me it is very useful and give me the
possibility to not care about what is the datatype of the field.
Rafael Mendonça França
http://twitter.com/rafaelfranca
https://github.com/rafaelfranca
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas
rr.ro...@gmail.com mailto:rr.ro...@gmail.com wrote:
Em 31-05-2012 11:48, Maksym Melnychok escreveu:
@ Rafael Mendonça França
legacy databases storage must be concern of corresponding database
adapter, if a field is of boolean type, whatever that means on
storage
level of particular database, that field must be treated as
boolean in rails
on the model level.
i'm not suggesting to drop such functionality for boolean
attributes, only
for non-booleans where #{attribute}? literally makes no sense
when you
read it.
methods count would be decreased because rails would generate
query
method only for boolean attributes.
I guess Rafael meant another thing. You have boolean fields in
PostgreSQL but someone might prefer to use some old ANSI types,
like INTEGER for storing such booleans for some reason.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Ruby on
Rails: Core group.
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.
Re: [Rails-core] Attribute query methods and semantics
On Thursday, May 31, 2012 4:50:05 PM UTC+2, Steve Klabnik wrote:
It's not saving a character. It's that !! is programmer talk, and ? is
human talk. Ruby prefers human talk.
well your kung-fu beats my kung-fu here
i just don't think post.url? is talking proper human talk to me, i would
expect answer to that question to be no, post is not a url instead i
will get yes, url attribute is not empty.
I guess Rafael meant another thing. You have boolean fields in
PostgreSQL but someone might prefer to use some old ANSI types, like
INTEGER for storing such booleans for some reason.
i think that first of all this is rather an edge-case that shouldn't force
us to go against least surprise principle
second - this directly goes against Steve's assumption that
post = Post.new
post.id = 0
assert post.id?
should not fail (it fails because 0 is apparently false.. since when?)
i personally think this smells a lot like PHP and it's non-logical,
generally ugly and wrong truthiness/falseness checks
On Thursday, May 31, 2012 4:50:05 PM UTC+2, Steve Klabnik wrote:
but if we decide that there doesn't have to be semantical contribution
to
your code from using attribute query methods then #{attribute}? is just
a shortcut for !!#{attribute} - so why do we need it in the first place?
saving 1 character is weird goal here.
It's not saving a character. It's that !! is programmer talk, and ? is
human talk. Ruby prefers human talk.
--
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/-/KND68A_wF8sJ.
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.
Re: [Rails-core] Attribute query methods and semantics
Maybe it is just me, but I don't use features that I don't like in rails,
just like I avoid calling private methods. In that sense, there's nothing
that is preventing anyone from using `post.body.present?` instead of
`post.body?`. My argument would be to let rational programmers decide what
is best for their specific case. If you're on a team, set a style guide
that picks a winner.
Allen Madsen
http://www.allenmadsen.com
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Maksym Melnychok keym...@gmail.comwrote:
On Thursday, May 31, 2012 4:50:05 PM UTC+2, Steve Klabnik wrote:
It's not saving a character. It's that !! is programmer talk, and ? is
human talk. Ruby prefers human talk.
well your kung-fu beats my kung-fu here
i just don't think post.url? is talking proper human talk to me, i would
expect answer to that question to be no, post is not a url instead i
will get yes, url attribute is not empty.
I guess Rafael meant another thing. You have boolean fields in
PostgreSQL but someone might prefer to use some old ANSI types, like
INTEGER for storing such booleans for some reason.
i think that first of all this is rather an edge-case that shouldn't force
us to go against least surprise principle
second - this directly goes against Steve's assumption that
post = Post.new
post.id = 0
assert post.id?
should not fail (it fails because 0 is apparently false.. since when?)
i personally think this smells a lot like PHP and it's non-logical,
generally ugly and wrong truthiness/falseness checks
On Thursday, May 31, 2012 4:50:05 PM UTC+2, Steve Klabnik wrote:
but if we decide that there doesn't have to be semantical contribution
to
your code from using attribute query methods then #{attribute}? is just
a shortcut for !!#{attribute} - so why do we need it in the first
place?
saving 1 character is weird goal here.
It's not saving a character. It's that !! is programmer talk, and ? is
human talk. Ruby prefers human talk.
--
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/-/KND68A_wF8sJ.
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.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Ruby
on Rails: Core group.
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.
Re: [Rails-core] Attribute query methods and semantics
On Thu, May 31, 2012 09:23, Sam Oliver wrote: On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:12 PM, James B. Byrne byrn...@harte-lyne.cawrote: I would generate attribute query methods only for boolean attributes. I am not sure that I understand your point, but in Ruby anything that is neither nil nor false is true. Thus returning the url string, if not nil, is the same as saying that it is true but also allows access to the actual data without having to send another message. I think Max's point is that post.visible? could be read as post is visible? but post is url? carries a different meaning. This really comes down to ones own understanding of English. Since visible is a quality of some object one may reasonably infer that #visible? is synonymous with #is_visible? This might not actually be the case of course but the inference is strong. In the case of #url? an url is not a quality, it is an object in own right even if its representation is wholly contained within the state of a container object (i.e. an attribute with a string value). I agree with the OP that in this case #url? is not good form and that #url is a superior since it imparts the idea that one should receive a representation and not simply a boolean. However, #has_url? or #has_anything? to me would be pointless in Ruby. If an object has one then just tell it to provide it and if nil is returned then it does not. -- *** E-Mail is NOT a SECURE channel *** James B. Byrnemailto:byrn...@harte-lyne.ca Harte Lyne Limited http://www.harte-lyne.ca 9 Brockley Drive vox: +1 905 561 1241 Hamilton, Ontario fax: +1 905 561 0757 Canada L8E 3C3 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Ruby on Rails: Core group. 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.
