On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 6:40 AM, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012, Marijonas Petrauskas wrote:
>
> There already exists create method that does exactly what you need:obj =
>> SomeModel.objects.create(name=**'foo', age=42)
>>
>
> OK, thanks, that appears to be completely undocumented.
>
On Fri, 12 Oct 2012, Marijonas Petrauskas wrote:
There already exists create method that does exactly what you need:obj =
SomeModel.objects.create(name='foo', age=42)
OK, thanks, that appears to be completely undocumented.
Cheers, Chris.
--
Aptivate | http://www.aptivate.org | Phone: +44 122
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 6:36 AM, Yo-Yo Ma wrote:
> +1
>
> A lot of people are overriding ``save`` and not returning anything, but
> this isn't going to hurt them (ideally, they should already be returning
> the result of ``super(``, but nobody does).
>
>
> On Friday, October 12, 2012 9:25:46 AM U
+1
A lot of people are overriding ``save`` and not returning anything, but
this isn't going to hurt them (ideally, they should already be returning
the result of ``super(``, but nobody does).
On Friday, October 12, 2012 9:25:46 AM UTC-4, Chris Wilson wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> If the save() method
There already exists create method that does exactly what you need:
obj = SomeModel.objects.create(name='foo', age=42)
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 2:33 PM, David Winterbottom <
david.winterbot...@tangentlabs.co.uk> wrote:
> While such a change is initially appealing, it violates the command-query
> s
While such a change is initially appealing, it violates the command-query
separation principle in that a 'command' method such as 'save' should not
return anything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command-query_separation
Hence, it's not a good idea to make this change. It's more important to
have c
Hi all,
If the save() method returned the object itself, then we could chain it
like this:
old_status = Status(last_contact=None).save()
Instead of having to do this:
old_status = Status(last_contact=None)
old_status.save()
It's a trivial one-line change to the Model
