On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 10:06 -0600, Jeremy Dunck wrote: > On 11/6/07, Thomas Guettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > You can use a property. Code not tested: > > Of course. I just have about 30 places to do that legwork, which seems silly. > > I understand Malcolm's argument, though. This is why I asked rather > than just making the small change in my local Django and changing all > my client code to assume it.
So if OneToOneField was able to handle pk=False (currently it's always the primary key) and othwerwise behaved as a reference that was unique on both ends, including being able to be addressed across the reverse relation, does that meet your needs? That's mostly compatible with what OneToOne does now and I can't think of much else it might need. We need to knuckle down and fix the whole "semantics might change" issue on that field at some point prior to 1.0 and I'm kind of in "get stuff needed before 1.0 done" mode at the moment. I'm not going to leap in and do this immediately, because we need a few more maintainers to check for downsides, but it's the kind of rough idea I've had in mind for this field for a little while and it hasn't sounded too stupid in the past. Regards, Malcolm -- Despite the cost of living, have you noticed how popular it remains? http://www.pointy-stick.com/blog/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
