Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

#receive! returns nil #6

Open
kornypoet opened this issue Oct 2, 2012 · 2 comments
Open

#receive! returns nil #6

kornypoet opened this issue Oct 2, 2012 · 2 comments

Comments

@kornypoet
Copy link
Contributor

Why is this? I want #receive! to return self like #update_attributes and .receive but it returns nil instead. What is the reasoning behind this? Also, why does #update_attributes NOT handle extra attributes? I have to work around all of these issues.

@mrflip
Copy link
Member

mrflip commented Oct 2, 2012

Return of nil was intended to be a non-contract, which I then documented.
That was a stupid idea. Return self makes more sense, and should be put
into place.

Also +1 to update_attributes taking handle_extra_attributes

Overall I think we'd benefit from you doing a thoughtful review of the
gorillib contract -- basically read through the rdocs, flag things that are
mature with @api rdoc tag, highlight methods that seem unused or that
offer too much functionality.

flip

On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 9:10 AM, Travis Dempsey notifications@github.comwrote:

Why is this? I want #receive! to return self like #update_attributes and
.receive but it returns nil instead. What is the reasoning behind this?
Also, why does #update_attributes NOT handle extra attributes? I have to
work around all of these issues.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/6.

infochimps.com - discover data

@temujin9
Copy link
Contributor

temujin9 commented Oct 2, 2012

+1 for Travis making gorillib more pro and less unpro.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants