Lets concentrate on making expressions in filter calls and lookups as
expressions reality. When we have done that we can try out different
syntax approaches in 3rd party apps. Finally, after we have field
tested the approaches, we can merge something in to Django.
- Anssi
On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Alexey Zankevich
<alex.zankev...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think the `F('name').decode('utf-8')` syntax is a good candidate for
>> core.
>
> When Django supports expression lookups, it will be possible to build syntax
> sugar third-party library on top of it.
> For example, it will be possible to implement dotted syntax for F objects:
>
> UserModel.objects.filter(Decode(F.user.name, 'utf-8') == u'Бармаглот')
>
> alternatively it can be even combined with your syntax
>
> UserModel.objects.filter(F.user.name.decode('utf-8') == u'Бармаглот')
>
> However, the second solution will be more complicated from technical point
> of view (as will require lazy object, collecting all the func or transform
> calls), also it will require to be really careful with transform names not
> to conflict with possible field names.
> For example, it's hardly possible to have "decode" field in the model, but
> easily - "date".
>
>
> On Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 10:18:40 AM UTC+3, Loïc Bistuer wrote:
>>
>> > On Oct 1, 2015, at 13:38, Anssi Kääriäinen <akaa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > +1 to not requiring all transforms to handle __underscore__ syntax.
>>
>> +1
>>
>> > I think what we want to do is allow users choose which syntax they
>> > prefer. The idea is that Django will support both JSONExtract('data',
>> > path=['owner', 'other_pets', 0, 'name']) and
>> > data__owner__other_pets__0__name out of the box.
>> >
>> > We will also make it possible to support callable transforms. For
>> > example:
>> > filter(Exact(Decode(F('name'), 'utf-8'), Value(u'Бармаглот')))
>> > is equivalent to
>> > filter(F('name').decode('utf-8') == Value(u'Бармаглот'))
>> >
>> > The callable transforms syntax will not be a part of Django, but it
>> > will be possible to create an extension for this (it is actually
>> > surprisingly easy to do once we have support for expressions in
>> > filter).
>>
>> I'm pretty convinced we need a better API / sugar as part of core in the
>> long run.
>>
>> The `filter(Exact(Decode(F('name'), 'utf-8'), Value(u'Бармаглот')))`
>> syntax is not pythonic and very hard to decipher, and we've reached the
>> limits of our historical double underscore syntax (doesn't support multiple
>> arguments, limited to ascii, etc.).
>>
>> I think the `F('name').decode('utf-8')` syntax is a good candidate for
>> core:
>>
>> - It's a small extension to the existing F objects, so it's easy to grasp
>> for existing Django users.
>> - It's just a thin sugar on top of the canonical API.
>> - All the required machinery being already in place (lookup & transform
>> registration) the change to Django is minimal.
>>
>> > - Anssi
>> >
>> > On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 4:00 AM, Josh Smeaton <josh.s...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >> No, not all Lookups or Transforms are required to handle __underscore__
>> >> syntax. The entire point of supporting object based lookups is to
>> >> handle
>> >> cases that get more complex than a single argument transform or a left
>> >> and
>> >> right hand side lookup.
>> >>
>> >> In particular, I think your Decode(utf8) example is a good one. It
>> >> shows
>> >> that you could maybe shoehorn multiple arg transforms into the
>> >> __underscore__ api, but it wouldn't be entirely obvious how to do so.
>> >> You'd
>> >> probably need to register partial transformations for each encoding you
>> >> wanted to support. The contrib.postgres module has (from memory)
>> >> KeyTransform classes that do a similar thing.
>> >>
>> >> Cheers
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Thursday, 1 October 2015 02:13:41 UTC+10, Alexey Zankevich wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> I'll try to turn lookups into expression (will use master branch).
>> >>> I also have a question. Meanwhile the old query syntax with
>> >>> underscores is
>> >>> pretty good for simple queries (like Model.objects.filter(name='Bob'),
>> >>> it
>> >>> gets really ugly for parametrized calls, a new JSONField is a good
>> >>> example
>> >>> of that:
>> >>>
>> >>>>>> Dog.objects.filter(data__owner__other_pets__0__name='Fishy')
>> >>> [<Dog: Rufus>]
>> >>>
>> >>> It will get even more messy if we want to pass a string as a second
>> >>> param
>> >>> of the func.
>> >>>
>> >>> ex.:
>> >>>
>> >>> 1. filter(Decode(F('name'), 'utf-8'), Value(u'Бармаглот')) # <- neat
>> >>> 2. filter(name__decode__utf8=u'Бармаглот') # <- ?? ambiguous and not
>> >>> nice
>> >>> at all
>> >>>
>> >>> So question - is it implied all the funcs, transforms and lookups to
>> >>> have
>> >>> underscore-based equivalent? It can affect the final implementation
>> >>> pretty
>> >>> much. In my opinion underscore-based equivalent should not be really
>> >>> required for funcs (the problem doesn't seem to affect transforms as
>> >>> they
>> >>> will not accept multiple params according to another thread).
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks,
>> >>> Alexey
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 9:19:51 AM UTC+3, Anssi Kääriäinen
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I don't think we need split-to-subq support for Lookups before we
>> >>>> make
>> >>>> them expressions. Lookups as expressions are usable outside
>> >>>> .filter(),
>> >>>> and we need the split-to-subq support only in .filter(expression).
>> >>>>
>> >>>> - Anssi
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 8:46 AM, Josh Smeaton <josh.s...@gmail.com>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>> I'm mixing my versions, sorry to those following along. 1.9 has just
>> >>>>> reached
>> >>>>> alpha. Lookups as Expressions should be doable for 1.10 which master
>> >>>>> is
>> >>>>> currently tracking.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Cheers
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On Wednesday, 30 September 2015 15:31:24 UTC+10, Josh Smeaton wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> The alpha for 1.10 has already been cut, and I'm not sure that the
>> >>>>>> kinds
>> >>>>>> of changes needed here are appropriate to add now that the alpha is
>> >>>>>> out. One
>> >>>>>> could *maybe* make the argument that changing Lookup to an
>> >>>>>> Expression
>> >>>>>> now
>> >>>>>> rather than later is the right move considering Transforms just
>> >>>>>> underwent
>> >>>>>> the same change for 1.10. Personally though, I don't think I have
>> >>>>>> the
>> >>>>>> time
>> >>>>>> right now to do this change. I would support you if you were able,
>> >>>>>> but
>> >>>>>> we'd
>> >>>>>> still be at the mercy of the technical board (I assume) for getting
>> >>>>>> this
>> >>>>>> change in for 1.10.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Do you think Lookup as Expressions requires the subquery/exclude
>> >>>>>> fix
>> >>>>>> you
>> >>>>>> mention above? I would think not -- not until we were ready to
>> >>>>>> document and
>> >>>>>> support .filter(Lookup(F(), Value()). If it wasn't a requirement,
>> >>>>>> it'd
>> >>>>>> make
>> >>>>>> the Lookup->Expression work much easier. It wouldn't even need to
>> >>>>>> be
>> >>>>>> documented (other than the release notes), as it'd just be an
>> >>>>>> implementation
>> >>>>>> change.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Cheers,
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> On Wednesday, 30 September 2015 14:33:14 UTC+10, Anssi Kääriäinen
>> >>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> On the core ORM side we need to make
>> >>>>>>> .exclude(LessThan(F('friends__age'), 30)) do a subquery. This way
>> >>>>>>> .exclude(friends__age__lt=30) does the same thing as the
>> >>>>>>> expression
>> >>>>>>> version. This isn't that easy to do. If we just use
>> >>>>>>> resolve_expression, then the friends relation will generate a
>> >>>>>>> join,
>> >>>>>>> and then as second step do a negated filter on the joined value.
>> >>>>>>> Instead we want to detect that the LessThan expression needs to be
>> >>>>>>> pushed in to a subquery.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> So, we need to solve:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> A) A way to ask an expression if it is referencing a multijoin
>> >>>>>>> (possible approach is to just have a method
>> >>>>>>> "refs_multi_valued_relation(query)")
>> >>>>>>> B) When the ORM sees an expression that is reffing a multijoin in
>> >>>>>>> an
>> >>>>>>> exclude filter, then we need to push the expression in to a
>> >>>>>>> subquery.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> A) requires some new work. This shouldn't be that hard to
>> >>>>>>> implement,
>> >>>>>>> we just recursively ask subexpressions if they reference a
>> >>>>>>> multijoin.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Something like https://github.com/django/django/pull/4385 will
>> >>>>>>> make
>> >>>>>>> B)
>> >>>>>>> much easier to implement.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> I've been working on making Q-objects responsible for resolving
>> >>>>>>> themselves. See https://github.com/django/django/pull/4801. This
>> >>>>>>> should solve 3).
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> We don't seem to be missing any major parts. I (or some volunteer)
>> >>>>>>> just need to finish the PRs, and then we should be really close to
>> >>>>>>> full support for expressions in filter.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Josh: do you think we could get Lookup as expressions in to 1.10
>> >>>>>>> instead of 1.11?
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> - Anssi
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 3:46 AM, Josh Smeaton
>> >>>>>>> <josh.s...@gmail.com>
>> >>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> 1. Lookups should become Expressions, just as Transforms have
>> >>>>>>>> become
>> >>>>>>>> Expressions. This will let us process Lookup arguments as
>> >>>>>>>> Expressions
>> >>>>>>>> all
>> >>>>>>>> the way the way through. I think this should be a major goal for
>> >>>>>>>> version
>> >>>>>>>> 1.11.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> 2. Chaining transforms is now possible since they are just Func
>> >>>>>>>> expressions.
>> >>>>>>>> Func(Func(Func('field_name'))) is no issue.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> 3. Sounds like an OK idea, but I haven't looked into the details
>> >>>>>>>> enough
>> >>>>>>>> to
>> >>>>>>>> really comment. I do think we should create the correct form as
>> >>>>>>>> early
>> >>>>>>>> as
>> >>>>>>>> possible (parsing into a chain of Lookup/Transform expressions)
>> >>>>>>>> so
>> >>>>>>>> we
>> >>>>>>>> don't
>> >>>>>>>> have to do parsing in multiple places. The entry points to
>> >>>>>>>> .filter()
>> >>>>>>>> and
>> >>>>>>>> .exclude(), or their direct counterparts in sql.query sound
>> >>>>>>>> ideal.
>> >>>>>>>> Anssi has
>> >>>>>>>> mentioned elsewhere that WhereNode's should only contain fully
>> >>>>>>>> resolved
>> >>>>>>>> expressions, so resolving will need to be done directly after
>> >>>>>>>> parsing
>> >>>>>>>> (or
>> >>>>>>>> during).
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Part 1 above can be started now if you have the time or interest.
>> >>>>>>>> We
>> >>>>>>>> can
>> >>>>>>>> nail down the particulars of part 3 while we're solving part 1.
>> >>>>>>>> Part 1
>> >>>>>>>> may
>> >>>>>>>> drive some of part 3.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Cheers
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 30 September 2015 04:49:54 UTC+10, Alexey Zankevich
>> >>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Here is a list of issues to solve to support explicit transforms
>> >>>>>>>>> and
>> >>>>>>>>> lookups by filter (and exclude) methods.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> 1. Make Lookup.__init__ signature to support initialization with
>> >>>>>>>>> F
>> >>>>>>>>> objects
>> >>>>>>>>> or string path (e.g. GreaterThan(F('user__id'), 10) or
>> >>>>>>>>> GreaterThan('user__id', 10)), not sure it's possible to use
>> >>>>>>>>> simultaneously
>> >>>>>>>>> with the current approach with lhs, rhs initialization (even
>> >>>>>>>>> with
>> >>>>>>>>> moving it
>> >>>>>>>>> to a separate class method, e.g Lookup.build(lhs, rhs)), so I
>> >>>>>>>>> assume
>> >>>>>>>>> creating so-called util classes which will delegate SQL-related
>> >>>>>>>>> functionality to existing Lookup classes.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> 2. Chain transforms by passing them as argument:
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Lower(Unaccent(F('user__name)))
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> 3. Decide if Q objects shall support explicit lookups/transforms
>> >>>>>>>>> as
>> >>>>>>>>> argument as well - it's a kind of logical step, as without Q
>> >>>>>>>>> objects
>> >>>>>>>>> it will
>> >>>>>>>>> not be possible to perform complicated conditions (AND, OR,
>> >>>>>>>>> NOT).
>> >>>>>>>>> In that case lookup/transform parsing should be moved from
>> >>>>>>>>> QuerySet
>> >>>>>>>>> object
>> >>>>>>>>> to Q object - filter will take already parsed lookup tree.
>> >>>>>>>>> Example:
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Q(user__name__lower__unaccent__icontains='Bob') will internally
>> >>>>>>>>> parse
>> >>>>>>>>> it
>> >>>>>>>>> and build next structure:
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Q(Icontains(Lower(Unaccent(F('user__name')))), 'Bob')
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 16, 2015 at 4:18:26 PM UTC+3, Alexey Zankevich
>> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> This topic is related to the current ORM query syntax with
>> >>>>>>>>>> underscores.
>> >>>>>>>>>> There are lots of arguing related to it, anyway it has pros and
>> >>>>>>>>>> cons.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Let's take a concrete example of querying a model:
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> GameSession.objects.filter(user__profile__last_login_date__gte=yesterday)
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Pros:
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> 1. The syntax is easy to understand
>> >>>>>>>>>> 2. Can be extended with custom transforms and lookups
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> However, there are several cons:
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> 1. Long strings is hard to read, especially if we have fields
>> >>>>>>>>>> with
>> >>>>>>>>>> underscores.
>> >>>>>>>>>> It's really easy to make a mistake by missing one:
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> GameSession.objects.filter(user_profile__last_login_date__gte=yesterday)
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Not easy to catch missing underscore between user and profile,
>> >>>>>>>>>> is
>> >>>>>>>>>> it?
>> >>>>>>>>>> Even
>> >>>>>>>>>> though, it's not easy to say whether it should be
>> >>>>>>>>>> "user_profile"
>> >>>>>>>>>> attribute or
>> >>>>>>>>>> user.profile foreign key.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> 2. Query strings can't be reused, thus the approach violates
>> >>>>>>>>>> DRY
>> >>>>>>>>>> principle.
>> >>>>>>>>>> For example, we need to order results by last_login_date:
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> GameSession.objects.filter(user__profile__last_login_date__gte=yesterday)
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> \
>> >>>>>>>>>> .order_by('user__profile__last_login_date')
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> We can't keep user__profile_login_date as a variable as in the
>> >>>>>>>>>> first
>> >>>>>>>>>> part
>> >>>>>>>>>> of the
>> >>>>>>>>>> expression we use a keyword argument, meanwhile in the second
>> >>>>>>>>>> part -
>> >>>>>>>>>> just
>> >>>>>>>>>> a
>> >>>>>>>>>> string. And thus we just have to type query path twice.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> 3. Lookup names not natural to Python language and require to
>> >>>>>>>>>> be
>> >>>>>>>>>> remembered or
>> >>>>>>>>>> looked up in documentation. For example, "__gte" or "__lte"
>> >>>>>>>>>> lookups
>> >>>>>>>>>> tend
>> >>>>>>>>>> to be
>> >>>>>>>>>> confused with "ge" and "le" due to similarity to methods
>> >>>>>>>>>> "__ge__"
>> >>>>>>>>>> and
>> >>>>>>>>>> "__le__".
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> 4. Lookup keywords limited to a single argument only, very
>> >>>>>>>>>> inconvenient
>> >>>>>>>>>> when
>> >>>>>>>>>> necessary to filter objects by range.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> I was thinking a lot trying to solve those issues, keeping in
>> >>>>>>>>>> mind
>> >>>>>>>>>> Django
>> >>>>>>>>>> approaches. Finally I came up with solution to extend Q objects
>> >>>>>>>>>> with
>> >>>>>>>>>> dot
>> >>>>>>>>>> expression syntax:
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> GameSession.objecs.filter(Q.user.profile.last_login_date >=
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> yesterday)
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Q is a factory instance for old-style Q objects. Accessing
>> >>>>>>>>>> attribute
>> >>>>>>>>>> by
>> >>>>>>>>>> dot
>> >>>>>>>>>> returns a child factory, calling factory will instantiate
>> >>>>>>>>>> old-style Q
>> >>>>>>>>>> object.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Q
>> >>>>>>>>>> <QFactory object at 0x7f407298ee10>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Q.user.profile
>> >>>>>>>>>> <QFactory object at 0x7f40765da310>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Q(user__name='Bob')
>> >>>>>>>>>> <Q: (AND: ('user__name', 'Bob'))>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> It overrides operators, so comparing factory with value returns
>> >>>>>>>>>> a
>> >>>>>>>>>> related
>> >>>>>>>>>> Q
>> >>>>>>>>>> object:
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Q.user.name == 'Bob'
>> >>>>>>>>>> <Q: (AND: ('user__name', 'Bob'))>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Factory has several helper functions for lookups which aren't
>> >>>>>>>>>> related
>> >>>>>>>>>> to
>> >>>>>>>>>> any
>> >>>>>>>>>> Python operators directly:
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Q.user.name.icontains('Bob')
>> >>>>>>>>>> <Q: (AND: ('user__name__icontains', 'Bob'))>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> And helper to get query path as string, which requred by
>> >>>>>>>>>> order_by
>> >>>>>>>>>> or
>> >>>>>>>>>> select_related queryset methods:
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Q.user.profile.last_login_date.get_path()
>> >>>>>>>>>> 'user__profile__last_login_date'
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> You can check implementation and more examples here
>> >>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/Nepherhotep/django-orm-sugar
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> How it solves issues:
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> #1. Dots hard to confuse with underscores
>> >>>>>>>>>> #2. Query paths can be reused:
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> factory = Q.user.profile.last_login_date
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> query = GameSession.objects.filter(factory >= yesterday)
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> query = query.order_by(factory.get_path())
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> #3. Not neccessary to remember most of lookup names and use
>> >>>>>>>>>> comparison
>> >>>>>>>>>> operators
>> >>>>>>>>>> instead.
>> >>>>>>>>>> #4. Possible to use multiple keyword arguments:
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Q.user.profile.last_login_date.in_range(from_date, to_date)
>> >>>>>>>>>> <Q: (AND: ('user__profile__last_login_date__lte', from_date),
>> >>>>>>>>>> ('user__profile__last_login_date__gte', to_date))>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> This approach looked the best for me due to several reasons:
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> 1. It's explicit - it doesn't do anything but generating
>> >>>>>>>>>> appropriate
>> >>>>>>>>>> Q
>> >>>>>>>>>> object.
>> >>>>>>>>>> The result of comparison can be saved as Q object variable.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> 2. It's short - variants with using model for that will look
>> >>>>>>>>>> much
>> >>>>>>>>>> longer,
>> >>>>>>>>>> when
>> >>>>>>>>>> joining two or more filters:
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> GameSession.objects.user.profile_last_login_date >=
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> yesterday
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> #
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> awkward
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> 3. Implementation will not require to change querset manager or
>> >>>>>>>>>> model
>> >>>>>>>>>> classes
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> 4. Will still allow to use filters and Q class in the old way:
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> q = Q(user__profile__last_login_date__gte=yesterday)
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> or
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> GameSession.objects.filter(user__profile__last_login_date__gte=yesterday)
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> I'd like to make it as a part of Django ORM syntax and it will
>> >>>>>>>>>> not be
>> >>>>>>>>>> hard to
>> >>>>>>>>>> do, especially taking into account the library is already done
>> >>>>>>>>>> and
>> >>>>>>>>>> working.
>> >>>>>>>>>> Anyway, I need your thought about the idea in general, as well
>> >>>>>>>>>> as
>> >>>>>>>>>> about
>> >>>>>>>>>> particular things like chosen method names - "get_path",
>> >>>>>>>>>> "in_range"
>> >>>>>>>>>> and
>> >>>>>>>>>> etc.
>> >>>>>>>>>> As next step I can create a ticket in the issue tracker, or
>> >>>>>>>>>> prepare
>> >>>>>>>>>> DEP
>> >>>>>>>>>> first.
>> >>>>>>>>>> In latter case I need to find a shepherd to work with.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>> >>>>>>>>>> Alexey
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> --
>> >>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the
>> >>>>>>>> Google
>> >>>>>>>> Groups
>> >>>>>>>> "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
>> >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>> >>>>>>>> send
>> >>>>>>>> an
>> >>>>>>>> email to django-develop...@googlegroups.com.
>> >>>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to
>> >>>>>>>> django-d...@googlegroups.com.
>> >>>>>>>> Visit this group at
>> >>>>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
>> >>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/3bad8371-f9b4-47ff-a681-0108b320e9b5%40googlegroups.com.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> --
>> >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> >>>>> Groups
>> >>>>> "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
>> >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>> >>>>> send
>> >>>>> an
>> >>>>> email to django-develop...@googlegroups.com.
>> >>>>> To post to this group, send email to django-d...@googlegroups.com.
>> >>>>> Visit this group at
>> >>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
>> >>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/5e7ee87b-6253-420b-9688-51c39d657cab%40googlegroups.com.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> >> Groups
>> >> "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
>> >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>> >> an
>> >> email to django-develop...@googlegroups.com.
>> >> To post to this group, send email to django-d...@googlegroups.com.
>> >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
>> >> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> >>
>> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/b97ea866-514c-4d03-bf60-e46a06e5fc5a%40googlegroups.com.
>> >>
>> >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>> >
>> > --
>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> > Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>> > an email to django-develop...@googlegroups.com.
>> > To post to this group, send email to django-d...@googlegroups.com.
>> > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
>> > To view this discussion on the web visit
>> > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CALMtK1H8OGkXJys4Z-XiZ9kFspZ_naqNS%2BbOigsHCK40Snhj1g%40mail.gmail.com.
>> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/9ea58a11-ce31-4d80-be45-913dff947878%40googlegroups.com.
>
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CALMtK1H7M6rs8uKbD3xurZHfuSyYsLp1Gn61jBwGVTmPygX35w%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
