Hey Russell, On Sat, 2006-10-14 at 10:54 +0800, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > On 10/12/06, Michael Radziej <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Russell Keith-Magee: > > > Sorry - I'm confused; Are you agreeing with the proposed change, or > > > saying it contradicts your expectations? (I think you are agreeing - I > > > just want to make sure) > > > > My highest preference is to make __exact=None behave like WHERE > > xxx=NULL, i.e. returning an empty set, against current behaviour > > *and* against your proposal. > > Ah - I missed the subtle difference you were advocating (=NULL vs IS > NULL). I agree completely; committed as r3902.
I really don't like this particular portion of the change. Using "= NULL" is a poor construction: legal, but pointless. Nothing should be equal to NULL, ever (except in Oracle, which likes to compare empty strings as being equal to NULL, but it's broken in that respect). NULL is not even equal to itself. So doesn't this defeat the purpose of the exercise now? Using __exact=None is now a synonym for "please don't ever return anything (except on Oracle)" whereas I thought your were shooting for "where this field is NULL". Regards, Malcolm --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
