Re: [sqlalchemy] Re: Reflections on the SA 2.0 new PG Range

On Wed, Nov 30, 2022, at 2:31 PM, Lele Gaifax wrote: > "Mike Bayer" writes: > > > On Wed, Nov 30, 2022, at 10:30 AM, Lele Gaifax wrote: > >> On the former one, it would be nice if we could reduce the "distance" > >> between the new Range class and what popular drivers provide: > >> > >> - "emp

[sqlalchemy] Re: Reflections on the SA 2.0 new PG Range

"Mike Bayer" writes: > On Wed, Nov 30, 2022, at 10:30 AM, Lele Gaifax wrote: >> On the former one, it would be nice if we could reduce the "distance" >> between the new Range class and what popular drivers provide: >> >> - "empty" vs "isempty": both asyncpg and psycopg have a "isempty" >> prop

Re: [sqlalchemy] Reflections on the SA 2.0 new PG Range

On Wed, Nov 30, 2022, at 10:30 AM, Lele Gaifax wrote: > Hi! > > I have finally completed the "port" of my application from SA 1.4 to SA > 2.0b. > > TL;DR I'm writing this report to ask an opinion about possible > "improvements" to the Range class. > > Given that the previous state was already

[sqlalchemy] Reflections on the SA 2.0 new PG Range

Hi! I have finally completed the "port" of my application from SA 1.4 to SA 2.0b. TL;DR I'm writing this report to ask an opinion about possible "improvements" to the Range class. Given that the previous state was already "clean" (that is, executing the test suite with SQLALCHEMY_WARN_20=1 did n