On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 5:55 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > >
I'd be -0.5 (let's see how pusillanimous I can be!) on introducing __ne, but +1 on fixing the internals to generate proper not equal comparisons. Alex -- "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Voltaire "The people's good is the highest law." -- Cicero "Code can always be simpler than you think, but never as simple as you want" -- Me -- 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.
