Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > 2) I have a minor problem with the _set suffix: to me, _set implies > uniqueness in the returned results, which will not exist unless > .distinct()/distinct=True is used. Either distinct needs to be turned > on by default and disabled by parameter/filter (which I have argued > for in a previous thread), or a suffix that does not imply uniqueness > is required. Possible candidates: _list, _objects
Could you provide an example where you would actually end up with duplicate results here? I'm having trouble thinking of how this would actually occur. AFAICT, each child object will only show up once in the results. If there is one, I agree that it would make sense to use distinct by default. There was a huge long thread a while back in which other names were discussed. Look it up in the archive if you like. The main reason I like _set is that it suggests a bunch of operations semantics that are fairly natural : that of the built-in set type in Python 2.4 . _list is incredibly misleading (see the previous threads), _objects is fairly vague...
