On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
Totally agree we should set clear expectations that "ne" does not mean we'll be getting nistartswith or any other negative lookup -- good call in bringing that up. This should be treated as a special case for a common case. Adrian -- 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.
