On Apr 14, 5:09 pm, mooman <[email protected]> wrote: > > + if cond.responds_to?(:empty?) && cond.empty? > > + clone > > + else > > how about more of an "optimistic" test like: > > if (cond.empty? rescue false) > clone > end
"Blind rescue missions" should only be used in extreme cases, IMO. > dont know how pretty that is, but should generally be faster than > checking if the receiver responds to a method then call it, and should > work the same, right? I'm not sure. You could benchmark it. Unused rescues still have some overhead I think, though I'm not sure how they compare to respond_to? > the only place where it would be much slower is if your cond really > doesn't respond to empty?, but how likely is it that cond responds to > "size" (the first line of that method), but not to "empty?". Then > again, i dont know much of Sequel's inner-workings. cond will always respond to size as the _filter method uses the *cond as the second argument. Unless you undefine Array#size, and I think Sequel will be the least of your problems if you do that. Jeremy -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sequel-talk" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sequel-talk?hl=en.
