Rick Morrison wrote: > personal opinion: I'm not wild about either 'attributes' or 'properties', > (a) they seem too long, and > (b) yes, they are too similar to generic ORM terms > > many many moons ago (pre Windows-1.0 ) I used an Ascii-GUI thing called > C-scape (I think it's called "vermont views" now). > > anyway, most of its objects had a space for a pointer to arbitrary user > data, and they consistently used something like "udata" for > the name of the pointer. > > So I'm +1 on a short, non-generic and uniquely "user-y" kind of name > like "udata". I know it sounds ugly, but we're dealing with database and > ORM terminology. Just about every generic name you can think of is bound > to be confused with something database-oriented.
The core can (and does) use these buckets too, so I'm not sure about the user-y moniker. But if that were it, I'd only be +1 on a spelled out version like 'userdata' that can be grokked without consulting the docs. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
