Re: Proposal for __neq field lookup

2009-10-20 Thread Jerome Leclanche
This is something I attempted once to do over a small GET wrapper by adding __not; any __not query would be passed to exclude(). Would that be a solution to the problem? J. Leclanche / Adys On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Michael P. Jung wrote: > > rm>

Re: Proposal for __neq field lookup

2009-10-20 Thread Michael P. Jung
rm> exclude(x=1).exclude(y=2) translates to NOT (x=1) AND NOT (y=2) So why do we have __gt, __ge, __lt, __le then? It would be as simple to have only __le and get rid of the rest as it can easily expressed using exclude and filter. I know, it's picky, but you get my point. I don't see why all

Re: Proposal for __neq field lookup

2009-10-20 Thread Russell Keith-Magee
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 10:09 PM, Michael P. Jung wrote: > > I'd like to propose a new field lookup __neq which could be used to > negate a single parameter. It is not ment to make exclude() obsolete, as > they both have a different scope: > > filter(x__neq=1, y__neq=2) would

Re: Proposal for __neq field lookup

2009-10-20 Thread Dennis Kaarsemaker
On di, 2009-10-20 at 16:09 +0200, Michael P. Jung wrote: > Besides exclude(x=None).exclude(y=None).exclude(z=None) feels less > intuitive to me than filter(x__neq=None, y__neq=None, y__neq=None). That's what Q objects are for: .filter(~Q(x=None),~Q(y=None),~Q(z=None)) or: