Do you think anyone currently uses #blank? on enumerables in its current
state? It doesn't make sense the way it is right now. Imagine a piece of
paper with a list of 10 blank lines. Wouldn't you call that a blank list?
On Monday, July 9, 2012 10:50:34 AM UTC-4, Xavier Noria wrote:
On Mon,
Date: Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 2:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Rails-core] Re: Defining #blank for Array.
To: rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com
Do you think anyone currently uses #blank? on enumerables in its current
state? It doesn't make sense the way it is right now. Imagine a piece of
paper with a list
I use it. It makes total sense to me.
If you have a piece of paper with a list of 10 blank lines, how do you know
there are exactly 10 blank lines instead of 3 or 7 or 13?
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Michael Boutros
michael.bout...@gmail.comwrote:
Do you think anyone currently uses
Yes, I think everyone uses #blank? on enumerables in its current state, and
expect that behavior, because it is well documented.
Rafael Mendonça França
http://twitter.com/rafaelfranca
https://github.com/rafaelfranca
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Michael Boutros
Sorry, where I last wrote empty I meant to write blank, ie: That's why
I think an array full of false, empty, or whitespace strings should be
_blank_. Rails defines blank as a convenience method instead of checking if
something is nil and then if it's empty or not. I think extending that
https://gist.github.com/3076887
On Monday, July 9, 2012 10:15:04 AM UTC-4, Michael Boutros wrote:
Hello:
1.9.3p194 :014 .blank?
= true
1.9.3p194 :015 [, ].blank?
= false
Proposal: the second line should also produce true.
Thoughts?
--
You received this message because you are
Ah, OK. So the definition of blank? is clear but you are proposing to
change it for Arrays right?
--
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
Yes.
On Monday, July 9, 2012 10:31:30 AM UTC-4, Xavier Noria wrote:
Ah, OK. So the definition of blank? is clear but you are proposing to
change it for Arrays right?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Ruby
on Rails: Core group.
To view this
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Michael Boutros
michael.bout...@gmail.comwrote:
Yes.
Your implementation makes sense. I mean, I believe that if blank? was
defined on enumerables as all?(:blank?) from the very first day, one could
have accepted that definition just fine.
But the current
That's very unlikely to happen. Pretty much all Rails app rely on this behavior.
--
Oscar Del Ben
Sent with Sparrow (http://www.sparrowmailapp.com/?sig)
On Monday, July 9, 2012 at 7:38 AM, Michael Boutros wrote:
Yes.
On Monday, July 9, 2012 10:31:30 AM UTC-4, Xavier Noria wrote:
Ah, OK.
Lock down your data at the gates and this is not a problem. Making
#blank? incredibly slow is silly.
On Jul 9, 7:15 am, Michael Boutros michael.bout...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello:
1.9.3p194 :014 .blank?
= true
1.9.3p194 :015 [, ].blank?
= false
Proposal: the second line should also
Blank is a convenience method for not checking the type of object. If you want
to do that you should use:
array.all?(:blank)
--
Oscar Del Ben
Sent with Sparrow (http://www.sparrowmailapp.com/?sig)
On Monday, July 9, 2012 at 7:30 AM, Michael Boutros wrote:
Sorry, where I last wrote empty I
12 matches
Mail list logo
