> > However, I'd much rather discuss things from a different > > standpoint. Let me rephrase the question - what is /wrong/ (not / > > nonsensical/) about combining order_by with get(X)? The only > > difference in the SQL generated is, in fact, the ORDER BY which > > shouldn't matter. > > get() actually has an explicit line that erases the "order_by" even > if one is present. 0.4 should be doing that but i havent checked > lately if thats covered. in 0.5 the mapper-level order_by() > happens differently so I know why it might not be working > (suggesting its not covered either). > > > I guess I'm following the philosophy of: if it doesn't hurt, and > > it makes some things easier or clearer, then it's fine. This > > seems to no different than bash suddenly proclaiming that "cat > > FILE | grep ..." won't work any more because the cat is > > gratuitous. > > I'd like to hear what other folks have to say since 0.4's query had > this attitude - you could have filter(), order_by(), whatever you > want set up, and get() would just ignore all that and do its thing. > There was general agreement that this was too open ended. In > this case I dont see order_by() as different from the others; > theyre all things that get() just ignores (or complains about). isn't .count() in the same train? will it complain if it had order_by?
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
