Thank you everyone for the responses.
I think it is not as big a deal as I might have been expecting,. The
purist in me does not like redefining object. But from an api perspective
there is not cleaner and purpose built name for the field in question.
Ken
--
SQLAlchemy -
The Python SQL
On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 7:18:03 PM UTC-4, Mike Bayer wrote:
> it will work fine
>
expanding on Mike's response... you're just defining `object` within the
scope of the class definition.
# `object` is the built-in
class Foo(object):
object = column()
#
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 6:57 PM, Ken MacKenzie wrote:
> yeah but I have it in the model as
>
> class gltable(Base):
> ...
> object = column(string(6))
it will work fine, up to you if you want to worry about it, you can
always make it:
object_ = column("object", string(6))
yeah but I have it in the model as
class gltable(Base):
...
object = column(string(6))
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 6:33 PM, Mike Bayer wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Ken MacKenzie
> wrote:
> > So I have been using SQL alchemy to convert
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Ken MacKenzie wrote:
> So I have been using SQL alchemy to convert some unidata data stores into ms
> sql data.
>
> One of the GL components in our system is called object, well object code.
>
> Most refer to it as object so when I defined my
So I have been using SQL alchemy to convert some unidata data stores into
ms sql data.
One of the GL components in our system is called object, well object code.
Most refer to it as object so when I defined my model for the table
including it I named it object.
It all works fine, but object