> > Although, you have a point, I have to say that limitation in order_by
> > bugs me as well. :)
>
> I think that's a case of learning to live with your disappointment. It
> would lead to a lot of counter-intuitive behaviour to make order_by()
> incremental, because the *first* ordering cond
On Thu, 2008-04-03 at 17:53 -0700, mtrier wrote:
> > The OP suggests an additive behavior similar to the way filter()
> > operates. However, there is also the option of a "last one wins" approach,
> > as
> > seen by the order_by() method (on trunk, is it the same in qs-rf?):
>
> Although, you
I think one of the reasons that order_by only uses the last one is
because you have often have a default that you may want to override,
and I guess the consensus is you shouldn't have to specify to clear
the default ordering if you reorder. Whether that should apply here
I'm not sure.
On Apr 3,
> The OP suggests an additive behavior similar to the way filter()
> operates. However, there is also the option of a "last one wins" approach, as
> seen by the order_by() method (on trunk, is it the same in qs-rf?):
Although, you have a point, I have to say that limitation in order_by
bugs me a
Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
>
> On 31/03/2008, at 2:33 AM, mtrier wrote:
>
>> Before opening a ticket I thought I would check what the expected
>> behavior is for generative values(). This is the behavior I'm seeing
>> on Queryset Refactor branch and to me it seems like it is not the
>> correct
On 4/2/08, Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > It may be worth checking if this is still a problem with queryset-
> > refactor; if it is stil a problem, it might be better to fix the
> > problem there, rather than trunk.
>
>
> Michael's using the branch (see the first quoted sec
Whoops.. I missed this a couple of days ago. I think I lost
consciousness somewhere in the Py3k thread when catching up after the
weekend.
On Tue, 2008-04-01 at 20:45 +0800, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
>
> On 31/03/2008, at 2:33 AM, mtrier wrote:
[...]
> This is the behavior I'm seeing
> > on Que
On 31/03/2008, at 2:33 AM, mtrier wrote:
>
> Before opening a ticket I thought I would check what the expected
> behavior is for generative values(). This is the behavior I'm seeing
> on Queryset Refactor branch and to me it seems like it is not the
> correct behavior.
>
from original.foo.
Before opening a ticket I thought I would check what the expected
behavior is for generative values(). This is the behavior I'm seeing
on Queryset Refactor branch and to me it seems like it is not the
correct behavior.
>>> from original.foo.models import Category
>>> Category.objects.all()
[, ,
