Could we add a some form of Union/Intersect to a conditions hash? so
it could be User.all(Condition({:active => true}) | Condition
({:confirmed => false}))? This seems very unlikely and potentially
more verbose, but thought I would throw it out there. The default
would be to AND together, you could use |/& for union/intersect, and
could group Condition within another Condition.Either way, I like it and I think it's a solid improvement! On Oct 30, 1:34 pm, "Dan Kubb (dkubb)" <[email protected]> wrote: > Whoops! Tiny correction on the SQL query examples, they should be: > > Union: > > User.all(:active => true) | User.all(:confirmed => false) > User.all(:active => true) + User.all(:confirmed => false) > # => SELECT * FROM users WHERE active = true OR confirmed = false > > Intersection: > > User.all(:active => true) & User.all(:confirmed => false) > # => SELECT * FROM users WHERE active = true AND confirmed = false > > Difference: > > User.all(:active => true) - User.all(:confirmed => false) > # => SELECT * FROM users WHERE active = true AND NOT(confirmed = > false) > > That's what I get for cutting and pasting ;) > > -- > > Dan > (dkubb) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DataMapper" 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/datamapper?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
