Adrian Holovaty wrote:
> Sounds pretty good to me. Let's do it.
I opened a ticket and submitted a patch:
http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/2482
My patch adds a keyword arguement to the 'values' method, as originally
proposed. It could be adapted pretty easily to Gary's suggestion of a
separa
Adrian Holovaty wrote:
> Oooh, that's a nice idea. I'm not 100% certain "flat=True" is the best
> name for it, but I can't think of anything better at the moment. Would
> you be willing to submit a patch?
Maybe .flatvalues("id", "name") or .valuelist("id", "name") ?
--~--~-~--~~
On 8/3/06, Daniel Poelzleithner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What do you think about returning n tupples for n arguments. if n > 1
> and a pure list for only one argument ?
>
> .values("id", "name", flat=True) would return
> [(id,name),(id,name),...]
>
> .values("id", flat=True) would return
> [id
jrs wrote:
> What would the result be if multiple fields were selected? or should
> this be valid only when a single field is requested?
>
> NetworkState.objects.all().order_by("-stopdate")[:5].values("id",
> "name")
I couldn't think of a nice solution at first, so i said for one key only.
Wh
What would the result be if multiple fields were selected? or should
this be valid only when a single field is requested?
NetworkState.objects.all().order_by("-stopdate")[:5].values("id",
"name")
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are su
On 8/3/06, Daniel Poelzleithner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> NetworkState.objects.all().order_by("-stopdate")[:5].values("id")
> [{'id': 2738}, {'id': 2737}, {'id': 2736}, {'id': 2735}, {'id': 2734}]
>
> Then i have to unpack it to get a [2738, 2737,...] list, which is what I
> wanted in the f
Hi,
Currently it's kinda verbose to get just a list of id's from a query to
put it in a bulk_in or process it further.
example:
>>> NetworkState.objects.all().order_by("-stopdate")[:5].values("id")
[{'id': 2738}, {'id': 2737}, {'id': 2736}, {'id': 2735}, {'id': 2734}]
Then i have to unpack it
