Nope it's just something I was throwing around.
What would exclude do in that example? I feel it should be explicit rather
than implicit (although I do see the reason for implicit calls where you
don't want to return text/blob fields, but explicit is always better).
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 3:18 PM, Gary Wilson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> David Cramer wrote:
> > IMO show() and hide() are extremely ugly. And I think .values() is
> becoming
> > ugly with the addition of values_tuple or whatever it's called. I don't
> see
> > a real good reason to clutter the namespace even more than it already is.
> > I'd rather have .values(type=dict) or something similar.
>
> Sorry, for some reason I completely skipped over the type switching in
> the values() call. I do agree that it would be better than having
> separate methods for each.
>
> I wonder if we would also need to support the people who want to exclude
> fields:
>
> Model.objects.values('field1', 'field2', exclude_fields=[...], type=...)
>
> Has a discussion of something like the "type" keyword argument been
> brought up before? The only two threads [1][2] I found about
> valuelist() and value_list() don't mention the idea.
>
> Gary
>
> [1]
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers/browse_frm/thread/22b44f4eafaf956a/
> [2]
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers/browse_frm/thread/4c7ba291577e6e73/
>
> >
>
--
David Cramer
Director of Technology
iBegin
http://www.ibegin.com/
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
