On 1/10/07, Michael Radziej <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Adam Seering schrieb: > > I would strongly second that. This seems to have fallen somewhat > > dead, though. Any thoughts?; anyone in favor of it?; anyone know of > > any reasons not to do it? > > +1 from me. I have already missed it several times. The "where > 1=0 solution" looks stupid. And the changed implementation of > QuerySet.in() also needs this (and uses where 1=0).
I'm +1 on adding a function for adding an empty queryset. Now, if only a patch would materialize out of the ether... :-) As for the '1=0' being stupid (and in() requiring it); agreed. 'where in ()' and 'where false' don't work on all DB backends, and it's non-trivial to optimize the logic chain to remove the need for the dumb clause. Any suggestions on better ways to represent this are greatfully accepted. Patches are even more greatfully accepted. Yours, Russ Magee %-) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
