On Apr 6, 3:51 am, Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [An unproven gut feeling: keeping a small reminder, however subliminal, > that things are relational-database backed is actually a good idea. It > will stop widely read people from thinking there is a true object > backing store. Your notation disguises that somewhat. I'm not sure we > can avoid the leaky abstraction here because we are limited by using > relational backing stores. Acknowledging that in our notation is not > necessarily bad.]
Awhile ago there was a thread on aggregate methods (SUM, AVERAGE, etc) and the stated goal was to come up with a way to make those work so that the programmer didn't require knowledge of SQL. Yet this seems to say that knowledge of the underlying SQL is good. And the keyword ForeignKey is certainly a database term and not a general English term, where maybe is_a or belongs_to might be. I'm not saying ForeignKey should change, but I'm suggesting that maybe restricting Django to come up with a way to query for aggregate functions that is more English-like doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the models and ORM that I can see. -Rob --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
