On Sep 4, 5:31 pm, Michael Bayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sep 4, 2008, at 5:33 PM, Jon wrote: > > > > > I'll note that if I use something like this in the ORM mapper > > definition: > > > order_by=meta.tables['some_table'].c.some_column, > > > get(pkey) continues to work *and* ORDER BY is used in the SQL. > > While ORDER BY doesn't make sense when acquiring just one item, it > > doesn't hurt either, and it's one small thing that people converting > > from 0.4 would need to know. Is there any reason why compatibility > > cannot be retained? > > get() should not be using the order_by specified in mapper(). If it > is, that's a bug. In 0.5, since the Query is becoming much more > comprehensive and richly featured than it used to be, it's important > that it does not allow operations which make no sense to proceed.
It is. I'd still like to request that order by be allowed - there is a big difference between "makes no sense" and "is an error". In this case, sqlalchemy is making an error out of sometime that doesn't need to be - the SQL is perfectly valid and doesn't impact the result whatsoever, negatively or positively (in the case of get()). Ordering isn't exactly a /condition/ of the query as it is manipulation of the result - it's not filtering the results or anything of that nature. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
