Seems Collin, I and co will have to agree to disagree on this. It's all relative I guess, you think we're upside down, I think you're upside down :-) Just a shame to burn thousands of man hours on something which is so plainly inconsistent to fresh eyes.
Collin Grady wrote: > James Bennett said the following: > > 1. It breaks consistency with how we currently do things > > I still disagree with you there. It would only break consistency if it > was actually crossing the relation and checking the ID field of the > other table. > > Since it is *not* a cross-relation lookup, not using __ syntax is *not* > inconsistent. On the contrary, it now becomes *more* consistent with > normal data access, such as obj.fkey_id > > > 2. What happens if somebody actually has a non-foreign-key field whose > > name ends with the sequence "_id"? > > Then it finds that field as normal, and everything continues on. You'd > only have to fallback to attname if you don't find a matching field name. > > -- > Collin Grady > > "Life is too important to take seriously." > -- Corky Siegel --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
