oh...sorry I meant the rationale for it being removed in 0.7, it had something to do with the internals of the whole thing. Perhaps I just forgot to re-implement, not sure.
On Aug 6, 2011, at 7:24 PM, Arturo Sevilla wrote: > I will see if later today I can provide some tests, or by tomorrow. I think > the basic rationale is that a composite property should behave like a regular > mapped property, and those have a comparator_factory, although I know this is > probable a lame argument. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "sqlalchemy" group. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sqlalchemy/-/J9HVsxHYg60J. > To post to this group, send email to sqlalchemy@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 sqlalchemy@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.
