On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Adrian Holovaty <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm inclined to say we do the former -- restore the "ne" lookup type > -- because it's a quick fix, and ask somebody to write up a patch for > the latter. Does anybody have strong opinions against this? If not, I > can restore the "ne" lookup type.
Sounds like a good plan to me (especially making simple excludes faster). However, just for the record I think the reason we decided to remove __ne is the first place was that its existence introduces a weird inconsistency with regard to other lookup types. That is, if there's a "ne" why isn't there a "nstartswith" or "nrange" or ... ? I think down that path lies madness so I'm +0 on bringing back "ne" with the proviso that we agree it's not the first step down a slippery slope towards "nistartswith" and friends. Jacob -- 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.
