On 12/14/05, Francois Beausoleil <francois.beausoleil <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey !
>
> 2005/12/9, Francois Beausoleil <francois.beausoleil <at> gmail.com>:
> > 2005/12/7, Francois Beausoleil <francois.beausoleil <at> gmail.com>:
> > > In the end, we're trying to keep the principle of least surprise
> > > active.  What's less suprising:
> >
> > So, what do we do ?  We could also take the status quo, and just add
> > the patch as-is, meaning relationships would prevent reusing existing
> > method names, but columns are not.
>
> Any takers on this ?

What if the patch were the 'full bonanza', combining both of the
earlier ones, with a special exception for the 'type' column, since
that one would be a hassle, and is going away soon via a Ruby update
anyway?

Even better, these checks could also be added to the generator script.

Is that too draconian? Personally, I think this can be a source of
very frustrating bugs to Rails newcomers, and it would be better to
err on the side of caution.

--Wilson.