On May 4, 1:18 pm, Phrogz <[email protected]> wrote: > On May 4, 1:29 pm, Jeremy Evans <[email protected]> wrote: > > > You want select_append instead of select_more. > > Just-in-time features from 3.11, eh? :) Thanks. > It feels a little odd to me that the implicit "selecting none is the > same as selecting all" gets equated to "selecting all is the same as > selecting none" in the case of select_more. Has select_append been > added just to work around some code that treats '*' as an empty > selection, even when select_all has been requested?
Yes. If you only want to make sure certain columns are included, select_more is fine. If you want to make sure all columns are included (*), while adding some calculated columns, select_append is what you want. The only difference between select_more and select_append is how an empty existing selection is treated (empty being the same as * in Sequel). Jeremy -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sequel-talk" 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/sequel-talk?hl=en.
