Michael Bayer wrote: > __repr__() really annoys me because no matter what i do with it, people > tell me im using it incorrectly. technically, __repr__() is supposed > to return a string that when eval'ed would return the object instance. > which is not realistic for an object like Table since its an enormous > construction. > > if you want to take Tables and produce some kind of string > representation, I recommend you create yourself a SchemaVisitor...since > __repr__() is not something id write code against in this case.
Thanks. In my limited case the __repr__ is close enough to treat it as a string for post-processing. All I need is to replace the field type instance with the proper constructor. These are one-off operations in order to commit a matching sqlalchemy model for existing versioned DDL to the repository. Would it be useful to add __repr__() roundtripping as long-term trac ticket? Acknowledging that full general-case __repr__ may be impractical, if anyone saw the ticket and had ideas for incremental improvements, __repr__ would seem to be amenable to test cases, documented limitations, etc. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sqlalchemy" group. To post to this group, send email to sqlalchemy@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
