On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 7:46 PM, Martin Pool <[email protected]> wrote: > I wonder if it'd be possible to make Storm send up a different type of > resultset for an unordered query, that would trap if you tried to do > something on it that seemed to indicate you needed something ordered? > For instance perhaps it would be reasonable to say that collections > iterated by TAL should always be ordered? If uses of unordered sets > are really rare, perhaps they could stick out in code?
The problem here is that 'set(resultset)' and 'list(resultset)' aren't distinguisable by the resultset (without -very- ugly code); slices / listification is where we would care about 'must have an order'; but even if that issue didn't exist, some order_by clauses are not sufficient, its not just *having one* that matters, its that it is sufficient to guarantee stability (where we care about that). The previous approach - add a random order-by to all queries which support order_by at all, worked well; I'm in favour of just bringing it back. -Rob _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
