On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 8:19 PM, Cal Leeming [Simplicity Media Ltd] < cal.leem...@simplicitymedialtd.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:40 PM, Russell Keith-Magee < > russ...@keith-magee.com> wrote: > >> >> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:31 PM, Florian Apolloner <f.apollo...@gmail.com >> > wrote: >> >>> On Thursday, March 20, 2014 2:01:25 PM UTC+1, Cal Leeming [Simplicity >>> Media Ltd] wrote: >>>> >>>> I'll give it a couple more days for a BDFL to gives the thumbs up/down. >>>> >>> >>> Well, we don't have BDFLs anymore and Shai already said he is -0 on it, >>> count me in with a relatively strong -0 too. I'd be a bit more open to it >>> if you could a better name. That said I generally agree with Shai about the >>> validation, eg this should be handled by the database constraints already >>> -- otherwise selecting via get doesn't make much sense imo. >>> >> >> Count me as a -0 as well. I simply don't see the problem with catching >> exceptions. Changing the name doesn't modify my objections. >> > > Then why did first() [1] get added? The only difference is that first() > adds a reference to [0], but it still saves the equal amount of code and is > still there for the same reasons of convenience, no? > first() was primarily added as an analog for latest(). Personally, I see a significant difference between first()/latest() and get_or_none(). first()/latest() is a specific, common query that has been optimized: list all, order by X, give me the first one. get_or_none() is a second version of an existing query: get(), but with a different return value. To me, this is duplication of an API, not a different query. In my ideal world, the get(default=None) approach would be what we would do; but, as others have pointed out, default is a valid column name, so this option isn't available to us. We already have a shortcut for get_object_or_404; a matching get_object_or_none makes sense to me, and puts the API where it make sense to me - as a shortcut for someone who is repeating the "catch DoesNotExist" pattern regularly and wants an easier way. Yours, Russ Magee %-) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAJxq84_281FRq4eJ6mxjBfWREi_50naTg%2B6mcvLBKSozeQwjYw%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
