<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: rquery</title>
	<atom:link href="http://nickelcode.com/about/rquery/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://nickelcode.com</link>
	<description>penny for your thoughts, nickel for your code</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 15 Aug 2010 20:52:58 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Bender</title>
		<link>http://nickelcode.com/about/rquery/comment-page-1/#comment-1228</link>
		<dc:creator>John Bender</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:01:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nickelcode.com/?page_id=161#comment-1228</guid>
		<description>@Adrian

I look at method_missing as a last resort as it ends up being less declarative and harder to read. Though, again, you end up dancing over lines when bending the language around like this, my goal is just to mitigate the weirdness. Also, I think using symbols is sort of representative of what were doing, comparing an immutable column with data in it to some value. 

Fork the code and implement it, I would love to see exactly what you mean.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Adrian</p>
<p>I look at method_missing as a last resort as it ends up being less declarative and harder to read. Though, again, you end up dancing over lines when bending the language around like this, my goal is just to mitigate the weirdness. Also, I think using symbols is sort of representative of what were doing, comparing an immutable column with data in it to some value. </p>
<p>Fork the code and implement it, I would love to see exactly what you mean.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Adrian Mugnolo</title>
		<link>http://nickelcode.com/about/rquery/comment-page-1/#comment-1227</link>
		<dc:creator>Adrian Mugnolo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2009 13:52:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nickelcode.com/?page_id=161#comment-1227</guid>
		<description>Interesting stuff!  Have you considered using method_missing and the default receiver within the where block, instead of symbols?  That would probably clean up the syntax a bit, and make it more readable.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting stuff!  Have you considered using method_missing and the default receiver within the where block, instead of symbols?  That would probably clean up the syntax a bit, and make it more readable.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Bender</title>
		<link>http://nickelcode.com/about/rquery/comment-page-1/#comment-1222</link>
		<dc:creator>John Bender</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2009 05:18:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nickelcode.com/?page_id=161#comment-1222</guid>
		<description>@Shadowfiend

Truly it was, and it forced me to think my way around the language constraints however minor!

@AkitaOnRails

Sorry to say there isn&#039;t. In a lot of cases you can use :foo.in to replace an OR statement but that won&#039;t work all the time.  An inner OR block perhaps? If you get to hacking on this send me a message on github and we can talk about merging!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Shadowfiend</p>
<p>Truly it was, and it forced me to think my way around the language constraints however minor!</p>
<p>@AkitaOnRails</p>
<p>Sorry to say there isn&#8217;t. In a lot of cases you can use :foo.in to replace an OR statement but that won&#8217;t work all the time.  An inner OR block perhaps? If you get to hacking on this send me a message on github and we can talk about merging!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: AkitaOnRails</title>
		<link>http://nickelcode.com/about/rquery/comment-page-1/#comment-1221</link>
		<dc:creator>AkitaOnRails</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2009 04:26:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nickelcode.com/?page_id=161#comment-1221</guid>
		<description>I understand that the where block concatenates all conditions using an &quot;AND&quot; statement. Is there a way to do an &quot;OR&quot; statement? Sorry if it&#039;s already there, I just took a glimpse into this blog post alone (just git clonning your repo ;-)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I understand that the where block concatenates all conditions using an &#8220;AND&#8221; statement. Is there a way to do an &#8220;OR&#8221; statement? Sorry if it&#8217;s already there, I just took a glimpse into this blog post alone (just git clonning your repo ;-)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Shadowfiend</title>
		<link>http://nickelcode.com/about/rquery/comment-page-1/#comment-1220</link>
		<dc:creator>Shadowfiend</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2009 03:56:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nickelcode.com/?page_id=161#comment-1220</guid>
		<description>Yeah, I haven&#039;t heard much about it in a long while, but it looked pretty cool. Never did get a chance to play with it, though :)

Even if you do prefer their approach, ultimately it sounds like it was fun (and probably educational) to build your implementation!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah, I haven&#8217;t heard much about it in a long while, but it looked pretty cool. Never did get a chance to play with it, though :)</p>
<p>Even if you do prefer their approach, ultimately it sounds like it was fun (and probably educational) to build your implementation!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Bender</title>
		<link>http://nickelcode.com/about/rquery/comment-page-1/#comment-1218</link>
		<dc:creator>John Bender</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2009 03:32:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nickelcode.com/?page_id=161#comment-1218</guid>
		<description>@Shadowfiend

Its a good thing I didn&#039;t find that before I got started otherwise I probably wouldn&#039;t have built this! I&#039;ll have to take a look at the source and see if I like their implementation more than my own.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Shadowfiend</p>
<p>Its a good thing I didn&#8217;t find that before I got started otherwise I probably wouldn&#8217;t have built this! I&#8217;ll have to take a look at the source and see if I like their implementation more than my own.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Shadowfiend</title>
		<link>http://nickelcode.com/about/rquery/comment-page-1/#comment-1216</link>
		<dc:creator>Shadowfiend</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2009 03:19:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nickelcode.com/?page_id=161#comment-1216</guid>
		<description>Sounds a lot like Ambition (http://defunkt.github.com/ambition/). You might want to look at what they already have for inspiration/borrowing/whatever.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sounds a lot like Ambition (<a href="http://defunkt.github.com/ambition/" rel="nofollow">http://defunkt.github.com/ambition/</a>). You might want to look at what they already have for inspiration/borrowing/whatever.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Bender</title>
		<link>http://nickelcode.com/about/rquery/comment-page-1/#comment-1210</link>
		<dc:creator>John Bender</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:53:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nickelcode.com/?page_id=161#comment-1210</guid>
		<description>@Mason

Spot on. Best case is that the where method, both in rails and the later more general implementation wouldn&#039;t need to be touched by anyone. How often do people dive into ActiveRecord to tool around right? Still it&#039;s a tradeoff and mutex&#039;s are best avoided where possible. At least here it&#039;s just some simple string and array operations.

Either way, this was the biggest faux pas that I perpetrated in making it a nice clean dsl, next on the list would be messing with Symbol. 

Thanks for posting your thoughts.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Mason</p>
<p>Spot on. Best case is that the where method, both in rails and the later more general implementation wouldn&#8217;t need to be touched by anyone. How often do people dive into ActiveRecord to tool around right? Still it&#8217;s a tradeoff and mutex&#8217;s are best avoided where possible. At least here it&#8217;s just some simple string and array operations.</p>
<p>Either way, this was the biggest faux pas that I perpetrated in making it a nice clean dsl, next on the list would be messing with Symbol. </p>
<p>Thanks for posting your thoughts.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mason</title>
		<link>http://nickelcode.com/about/rquery/comment-page-1/#comment-1209</link>
		<dc:creator>Mason</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:46:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nickelcode.com/?page_id=161#comment-1209</guid>
		<description>@John

Gotcha. I took a looksie at the code. The only part I don&#039;t like is the mutex around the block execution. I understand why you did it, and there&#039;s really no way to avoid it without giving up your symbol-based API in favor of, say, passing in an object which receives the operations... but I can see some n00blin&#039; doing something expensive or slow within the block, effecting other threads also building queries. I would maybe add a warning to the docs/readme warning about the mutex, and encouraging them not to do anything crazy within the block if running a multithreaded program.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@John</p>
<p>Gotcha. I took a looksie at the code. The only part I don&#8217;t like is the mutex around the block execution. I understand why you did it, and there&#8217;s really no way to avoid it without giving up your symbol-based API in favor of, say, passing in an object which receives the operations&#8230; but I can see some n00blin&#8217; doing something expensive or slow within the block, effecting other threads also building queries. I would maybe add a warning to the docs/readme warning about the mutex, and encouraging them not to do anything crazy within the block if running a multithreaded program.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Bender</title>
		<link>http://nickelcode.com/about/rquery/comment-page-1/#comment-1208</link>
		<dc:creator>John Bender</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:25:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nickelcode.com/?page_id=161#comment-1208</guid>
		<description>@mason 

Most likely the gists, I really need to get some syntax highlighting thats built into the blog.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@mason </p>
<p>Most likely the gists, I really need to get some syntax highlighting thats built into the blog.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
