From: Trans <transfire@...>
Date: 2008-10-07T23:31:43+09:00
Subject: Re: RINQ?



On Oct 7, 5:11 am, Peña, Botp <b...@delmonte-phil.com> wrote:
> From: Trans [mailto:transf...@gmail.com]
> #...
> #   r = query do
> #         from :c => :customer, :a => :account, :b => :bank
> #         select b.name
> #         where (( c.firstname == first1 ) |
> #                ( c.firstname == first2 ) ) &
> #               ( c.lastname =~ last ) &
> #               ( a.owner == c ) &
> #               ( a.bank == b )
> #   end
>
> try
>
>    r = query(customer, account, bank)  do |c,a,b|
>          select (( c.firstname == first1 ) |
>                 ( c.firstname == first2 ) ) &
>                 ( c.lastname =~ last ) &
>                 ( a.owner == c ) &
>                 ( a.bank == b ) .
>          collect b.name
>        end

Ah, I see. Ok, then even a little more Rubyish:

r = select(customer, account, bank)  do |c,a,b|
      (( c.firstname == first1 ) ||
       ( c.firstname == first2 )) &&
      ( c.lastname =~ last ) &&
      ( a.owner == c ) &&
      ( a.bank == b )
    end.
    collect(customer){ |b| b.name }

> #...
> # But is Ruby ultimately expressive enough? We
> # may end up adding enough new syntax
>
> i think ruby syntax is more than enough (imho). In a way, i'd like to think like active records when it comes to databases (in mfowler's sense, not rails) and use ruby to implem.

How does Fowler's approach differ from Rails? I didn't know there was
an essential distinction.

T.