On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 7:15:55 PM UTC+2, ptone wrote: > > Earlier discussion > > https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/django-developers/Saa5nbzqQ2Q >
This was the thread I referred to. If was from 2006 and ended up being about something else. > tickets: > https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/17546 > Closed as dupe with no further analysis. > https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/2659 > This is about a different API which is a bit more cumbersome. And it was closed 6 years ago with a - "this could be feature creep". > https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/11352 > This is a different proposal. Just to expand slightly on my proposal - I don't actually want to get anything else than None out of get. I just want something that makes intuitive sense to a Python programmer and saves me from the annoying try-except pattern or the related: objs = SomeClass.objects.filter(slug="xyz") obj = None if objs: obj = objs[0] which I often end up shortening as obj = SomeClass.objects.filter(slug="xyz") if obj: obj = obj[0] You can't get a zero or one objects out of the ORM elegantly, something I find I have to do relatively often in some code bases. I don't consider try-except intuitive for a situation where the exception case isn't exceptional. default=None makes sense when you are used to dicts, .first() or .get_or_none() or .getnone() or .single() would be fine too. Ole -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/django-developers/-/r8vZ2A9tIkgJ. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en.
