Hiya, thanks for the reply. So in this case the extra fields are actually denormalized subsets of the original field, and the reverse relation can use the main field. (At least, at the moment, that's my plan, but that could change. Which I guess goes to show how rare this case probably actually is.)
But you can see that with the data being so similar on each many-to-many table, I'd want to avoid confusing the other model with a set of extra properties that aren't so useful and will have similar names! So I guess there might be other cases where you likewise didn't want to create a confusing backwards relation, and the '+' behaviour might be expected to work as the documentation suggests (to me) that it might. Incidentally I'm a bit confused about the naming of ManyToMany fields: the examples tend to name them in the plural sites = models.ManyToManyField(Site, verbose_name="list of sites") but the backwards relation gets created with a singular name (inevitably I guess, because that's what the system can work out). It seems a bit inconsistent? cheers George -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en.
