"The new instance will share a link to the same attributes as the original class. So any change to the attributes in either instance will affect the other."
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rubyonrails-core/-/22M16_XMSnYJ.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonra...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-co...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en.
Rails:
Why diverge from this pattern for a single case? If becomes is not the method for this, them maybe there should be an alternative like object.behave_like(Class)
-1 for the merge.
+1 for a doc fix where this is more explicit.
I've always used x.becomes(Foo) for the side effect (mutating x)
instead of for the return value.
As I see it, the name _becomes_ clearly states that the receiver is
affected. If it was #convert or #cast or something that would
reasonably return a new object while not mutating the receiver I could
see how this could be thought of as a bug.
But it just makes sense that #becomes alters the original object.
Cheers,
-foca
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en.
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Ruby on Rails: Core" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to