Jonathan Ellis wrote: > I don't think that would be better at all. It implies that x, y, and z > are all optional parameters, which usually isn't the case.
Well, that's up to the developer of the SP, isn't it? I mean, the SP could react appropriately when one or more of its parameters is NULL. If the engine knew the alternative syntax, I bet that both sqlalchemy and many other interfaces out there could easily use the SP, instead of treating it with alienation, as it would make introspection polymorphic wrt selectable SPs. At the very least, one should be able to use a VIEW to wrap the SP... Anyway, this is somewhat OT. What matters is having a nice way of dealing with them, and I'm looking forward to see what Michael suggested :-) ciao, lele. _______________________________________________ Sqlalchemy-users mailing list Sqlalchemy-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sqlalchemy-users
