> Would there be any reason why someone might want to have a column type > that's *not* derived from sqlalchemy.types.AbstractType? ... An exception message like "Second argument to > Column() should be a type, but (whatever) was found instead" would > probably have saved you some searching, right?
Yes, indeed, it would be fine when constructing the Column failed immediately. But Column.__init__ says: "This can be any subclass of types.AbstractType (...) or user-defined types." So probably Column.__init__ is not the place where the check is possible :-( and I'm not yet familiar with SA to say where it could fail most early. Ruben PS: Sorry it took much time until I could read and answer --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sqlalchemy" group. To post to this group, send email to sqlalchemy@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
