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
wrote:
> Do you think anyone
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
wrote:
> Do you think anyone currently uses #blank? on enumerables in its c
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 of 10 blank lines
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, J
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
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 wrote:
> Hello:
>
> 1.9.3p194 :014 > "".blank?
> => true
> 1.9.3p194 :015 > ["", ""].blank?
> => false
>
> Proposal: the second line should also produce true.
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,
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Michael Boutros
wrote:
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 definition also makes sense to m
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 di
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
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 mes
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
co
12 matches
Mail list logo