> I agree that I don't much like the way it just dangles there like > that, but I don't see any other way to accomplish what's desired. In > working with it, I find that it helps to imagine yourself back in the > 90s for a moment. > > "User name equals Bill or user name equals Ted... NOT!" > > OK, maybe I'm just odd. Or maybe the method name needs an exclamation > point. :) In all seriousness, though, it's not much different than > something like String#reverse. >
Actually, I take that back. I updated the patch (still at http://gist.github.com/360075) and added experimental support for an alternate not syntax under Ruby 1.9, thanks to BasicObject#!. >> articles = Article.scoped >> articles.where(!articles.table[:title].eq('Hello!')).to_sql => "SELECT \"articles\".* FROM \"articles\" WHERE (NOT (\"articles\".\"title\" = 'Hello!'))" >> articles.where(not(articles.table[:title].eq('Hello!'))).to_sql => "SELECT \"articles\".* FROM \"articles\" WHERE (NOT (\"articles\".\"title\" = 'Hello!'))" It still passes the same tests it did before, and it seems (in this case) reasonable to override the boolean not operator like this, to me. -- 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 [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en.
