Chris Withers wrote: > > I see how you've fixed this for 0.6, but it makes me wonder why the > __table_args__ check is there at all? They're essentially benign, right? > (since in the test case above, it really doesn't make sense for Specific > to have __table_args__ inside _as_declarative... I can't think of a test > case where it would be problematic...)
there's an assertion for "you specified __table_args__ but no __tablename__", and we check if __table_args__ came from a mixin in which case we don't raise that exception. > > cheers, > > Chris > >> no thanks needed, feel free to divert .0001 pence of every transaction >> onto our Paypal link.... :) > > I'll see what I can do ;-) > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "sqlalchemy" group. > To post to this group, send email to sqlalch...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > sqlalchemy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sqlalchemy" group. To post to this group, send email to sqlalch...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sqlalchemy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en.
