Panayotis Matsinopoulos wrote in post #1076115: > You may be right, but I have found a lot of other posts on Internet that > they complain about "belongs_to". It does not bear the correct meaning > for > all cases. For example: > > class Product > > belongs_to :status > > end > > .....Awful. No, the Product does not "belong" to a Status. It "has_a" > status.
The "belongs to" is not really intended to mean what you seem to think it means. The way I think about it is that the product "object" belongs to the status "object". I agree with Frederick. I see no reason to muddy the waters and potentially confuse experience Rails developers. Consistency in naming is far more important than grammar syntax in an API. Besides that, has_many, belongs_to, etc. are internal implementation details. Not need to worry to much about the public API that the are used internally to create: product.status It makes little difference what the internal implementation of Product looks like from the outside. -- 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 https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
