similar to: 100% polymorphism problem, hmm not so sure.

Hi, I''m just playing with ActiveResource and I did''nt find anything about the support of (polymorphic) associations. Is there a support at all? Thanks in advance --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to

I love the query interface (ActiveMethod::QueryMethods), but one thing has bugged me: why doesn''t it generate calls for polymorphic associations? For example: class MyModel < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :parent, :polymorphic => true end I would expect: MyModel.where(:parent => a) to be equivalent to: MyModel.where("my_models.parent_id = ? AND

Hi, currently I do some work with polymorphic associations in egde rails class Order < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :payment, :polymorphic => true end class CreditCardPayment < Payment end class PayPalPayment < Payment end class Payment < ActiveRecord::Base has_one :order, :as => :payment # common stuff in here end I want to use [Payment] for common functionality

> Why do you say that people who compile, e.g., functional languages > would benefit from type variables in LLVM? > I like the level the LLVM is at, and would prefer to deal with > instantiating parametric polymorphism at a higher level. I'm surprised you're happy with a non-polymorphic llvm. Does Cayenne target llvm? Dependent types take polymorphism to new heights -- but

I have the following polymorphic association set up with acts_as_relation (https://github.com/hzamani/acts_as_relation) Model code: class Email < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :detail validates_presence_of :address end class Detail < ActiveRecord::Base acts_as_superclass has_many :emails accepts_nested_attributes_for :emails, allow_destroy: true

On Wednesday 18 February 2009 23:36:27 DeLesley Hutchins wrote: > > Why do you say that people who compile, e.g., functional languages > > would benefit from type variables in LLVM? > > I like the level the LLVM is at, and would prefer to deal with > > instantiating parametric polymorphism at a higher level. > > I'm surprised you're happy with a

The proposed addition to ProgrammersManuel.rst is below the break... This is essentially trying to explain the emerging design techniques being used in LLVM these days somewhere more accessible than the comments on a particular piece of infrastructure. It covers the "concepts-based polymorphism" that caused some confusion during initial reviews of the new pass manager as well as the

Hi all, I need to model simple typed polymorphic relations: ''John'' [''works_for''] ''Bill'' ''John'' [''speaks_for''] ''Microsoft'' ''Microsoft'' [''hold_shares_of''] ''Apple'' I''m having a hard time combining : - S.T.I.

Hi, I got Image model that has_attachment and belongs_to 2 other models via polymorphic association. The problem is that I''d like to customize has_attachment options (resize image) depending on which model the Image is related to - i.e. if Image belongs to Article it should be resized using different settings than if it belongs to Header. Is there a smart way to do it or do I have to

Hi, I''m currently having the situation where I have to implement a polymorphic has_and_belongs_to_many by introducing an in between model that handles all the "has_many :as" and "belongs_to :polymorphic" association implementations... and is not doing anything else. Thing I don''t like it here is, I am unnecessarily loading AR instances only to execute SQL

Hello, is it possible to setup a model/table schema like this: Groupable --> Membership <-- Group ^ ^ | | User UserGroup I tried the following but failed: Groupable (table with ''type'' column) has_many :memberships, :as => :groupable has_many :groups, :through => :memberships

Why do you say that people who compile, e.g., functional languages would benefit from type variables in LLVM? I like the level the LLVM is at, and would prefer to deal with instantiating parametric polymorphism at a higher level. On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 10:43 PM, DeLesley Hutchins <delesley.spambox at googlemail.com> wrote: >> I think many people were confused by this at first but an

I am working on a small model mixin called attachment_kung to make attachment_fu polymorphic, so you no longer need a different table and Model class for every associated attachment (Productimage, Ad_doc, etc). All you really need is one model and table to handel all your attachments - in some cases, anyway. I have the code working, but have run into one small hitch that I can''t seem to

Hi, lets say I have a a table, "Linkings" that I am using for polymorphic associations. One of the associations is to the "person" table, and there are several other associations. "Person" has 2 types, "slacker" and "suckup". It is modelled as such: class Linking < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :person belongs_to :linkable, :polymorphic

I would like to associate a ‘product’ model with 3 models inherited from ‘image’: part, action and accessory. I have it working with Has_many :through relating products to images through attachments, I then have to determine the ‘type’ of the STI extension. This means i have to go product.images. While this is ok, i can see it getting tricky when i want to go products.images <<

Didn''t have quite enough space to describe it there...basically i''m having a problem with the :uniq option in my tags. I''m using acts_as_taggable_on_steroid which adds these associations to my Resource class: Resource has_many :taggings, :as => :taggable, :dependent => :destroy, :include => :tag has_many :tags, :through => :taggings, :uniq => true

On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 12:32, DeLesley SpamBox <delesley.spambox at googlemail.com> wrote: >> I think the problem is deeper than that, in that LLVM has no official >> concept of a subtype, so I don't see how the idea of polymorphism >> could be defined in it. > > Parametric polymorphism is different from subtype polymorphism; you > can have one without the

Ticket 4052 (http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/4052) just came through trac, which introduces the need for a better way to access fixtures. I believe the basic problem is the same as 3935 (http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/3935) in that the accessor method which is constructed by the fixture call can''t infer the class name from the table name. The band-aid in 3935 was to allow you to

Hi, I'm having trouble seeing the added value over functions defined by setGeneric vis-a-vis methods defined by inheritance and polymorphism. setGeneric offers a 'clean' call to a generic function, ie. no need to call new(), so less typing to do for the user. But such explicit calls can also be avoided by functions like f <- function(x, y) new(Class = SomeClass, x=x, y=y). Then

> I think the problem is deeper than that, in that LLVM has no official > concept of a subtype, so I don't see how the idea of polymorphism > could be defined in it. Parametric polymorphism is different from subtype polymorphism; you can have one without the other. Parametric polymorphism just means that you can use type variables (like T) in the IR, which are later instantiated to