On Dec 3, 2008, at 6:39 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > B. So I can settle with a merge() method that returns an object. I > think it's the only solution (beside forcing them to work with saving > to the db). Actually, it's not too bad. But it's also not easy, I tell > you, to write such a function. Because what happens if one of the > things that defines me, a part of my uniqueness, is not really a > unique field, but a list of objects that are connected to me in a > many- > to-many relationship from another table. And what if I need to call > merge() on each one of them. And what if two of them are evaluated to > be the same object, so I need to fix the list. oof! > merge() doesn't do much that you couldn't do manually on your own. if you need to write a jacked up merge()-like function that compares collections and things, i dont think Python will let you down in that regard. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
