On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:18 AM, Kent wrote: > > Off topic, but from a shell prompt I sometimes find myself naturally > attempting this: > session.detach(instance) > > and then when that fails, I remember: > session.expunge(instance) > > I'm not asking for a change here, but quite curious: you think 'detach' is a > better/more natural term?
I'll agree I hate the term "expunge()". "evict()" is often what I think of. detach(), also nice. consider that it's the opposite of add(). unfortunately remove() is already taken. i guess the patch is interacting with that "load_on_pending" stuff, which I probably added for you also. It would be nice to really work up a "new SQLAlchemy feature: detached/transient object loading" document that really describes what it is we're trying to do here. If you were to write such a document, what example would you give as the rationale ? I know that's the hard part here, but this is often very valuable, to look at your internal system and genericize it into something universally desirable. It would make it clearer what we'd do with the flush() issue from yesterday too. -- 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.
