Noam wrote: >> I agree in principle, and this is why I always use `has_field` >> rather than `with_fields`. > > [snip snip] > > By the way, what are the advantages of the with_fields way (if there > aren't, except for a few saved keystrokes, I would say go and remove > it - "There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to > do it.")
There was some disagreement between the original authors on which syntax we all liked best. In the end, we decided to put both in and let users decide which they liked best. I started off in the `with_fields` camp, and now firmly behind `has_field`. I wouldn't object to deprecating the `with_fields` syntax personally, but I'd like to hear from Gaetan and Daniel to see if either of their opinions have changed. If there is any disagreement from Gaetan and Daniel, then I'd prefer just to keep things as they are, even though I am in total agreement with the OWTDI mantra from the Zen of Python. Thanks for the feedback - -- Jonathan LaCour http://cleverdevil.org --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SQLElixir" 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/sqlelixir?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
