On 8 October 2010 08:45, Robert Collins <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 7:46 PM, Martin Pool <[email protected]> wrote: >> I wonder if it'd be possible to make Storm send up a different type of >> resultset for an unordered query, that would trap if you tried to do >> something on it that seemed to indicate you needed something ordered? >> For instance perhaps it would be reasonable to say that collections >> iterated by TAL should always be ordered? If uses of unordered sets >> are really rare, perhaps they could stick out in code? > > The problem here is that 'set(resultset)' and 'list(resultset)' aren't > distinguisable by the resultset (without -very- ugly code); slices / > listification is where we would care about 'must have an order'; but > even if that issue didn't exist, some order_by clauses are not > sufficient, its not just *having one* that matters, its that it is > sufficient to guarantee stability (where we care about that). > > The previous approach - add a random order-by to all queries which > support order_by at all, worked well; I'm in favour of just bringing > it back. >
+1 on the assumption that Storm doesn't make it hard to do. -- Graham Binns | PGP Key: EC66FA7D http://launchpad.net/~gmb _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
