it's not about littering API / namespaces or not, but if u percieve it just as such... nevermind. i admit that undoing some change can be difficult or just impossible in certain cases. So i'll do a sort of command pattern then, keeping intermediate queries. Forget that i asked.
> Beyond the API "littering", there may be instances where it is > difficult or impossible to remove a query attribute, because adding > the attribute caused a join calculation or reordered parenthesis, > or whatever. > > The second pattern is better, e.g. "save a copy", rather than > mucking things up with removal code. One of the aims here is to > simplify the API, and IMO adding removal code works against that. > > On 6/6/07, Marco Mariani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > svilen ha scritto: > > > because q1 with the order is _the_ query, made at point A > > > somewhen, and stored there as a construct; much later at some > > > point B i need to use that query but without the ordering - now > > > i have to keep 2 copies of the query, w/ and w/out order. And > > > this strip-the-ordering could be generic, applicable to any > > > query... > > > > Basically you're asking for that to gain some performance on > > q2.execute(), and at the same time you want to avoid littering > > your function's namespace. > > > > Ok, I understand. I find the API is cleaner without that feature, > > but I am nobody here :-) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
