> In my opinion __replace__ should be able to replace multiple fields.
This suggestion is accepted and checked-in. See revision 58975.
Surprisingly, the required signature change results in improved
clarity. This was an all around win.
Raymond
___
P
> crucial stuff like __fields__ ... fully
> read-write.
On further thought, I think this is a good idea. Nothing good can come from
writing to this class variable.
Suggestion is checked-in in rev 58971. Curiously, it was already documented as
read-only (I took the time machine out for a spin
> for efficiency I would prefer to avoid using * to break
> up the sequences generated directly by the database interface.
There are some use cases that would be better served by an alternate design and
others that are better served by the current design. For example, it would
really suck to ha
