jnunemaker/mongomapper — comment on commit e755e1aab0257e575e46777ceab13ea4619cf905
File:  line 0
By brianhempel:

@bkeepers @collindo a few more thoughts, please excuse me if it sounds like rambling...

My reservation is that none of MM's other associations require the inverse to be set.

My suggestion was...

```ruby
many :lists, :from_foreign_array => true
# or maybe
many :lists, :in_foreign => true
```

..because everything can be inferred from that. (The foreign key is `:"#{self.model_name}_ids"`, the foreign class is `Lists`, the type of document is `self`.) Similarly, I don't think this has been suggested yet...

```ruby
belongs_to_many :lists
```

...but I don't know if I like that b/c in a standard `belongs_to` the key is on the defining model, rather than the other.

At a glance, to make an InForeignArrayProxy from the InArrayProxy the only thing that needs to be redefined is `klass` which is actually defined by the association, not the proxy. That seems to be true without needing to define the inverse, so I don't quite understand what advantage is gained by specifying the inverse, unless it's just sugar for the eyes.

Maybe there is no best syntax? :/