On Jan 8, 2:50 am, jason kirtland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This was a bug in the reflection of empty string defaults. Give r4029
on the trunk a try.
You're my hero -- for today, anyway. Thanks for the fast fix!
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message
On Jan 8, 12:25 am, Michael Bayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
passivedefaults are reflected in 0.4 just as they are in 0.3, as much
as the underlying database allows them to be discovered.
Thanks for the quick reply. I reduced this to a small example and it
seems the failure I'm encountering
Smythe wrote:
On Jan 8, 12:25 am, Michael Bayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
passivedefaults are reflected in 0.4 just as they are in 0.3, as much
as the underlying database allows them to be discovered.
Thanks for the quick reply. I reduced this to a small example and it
seems the failure
