On Friday 17 March 2006 17:27, Oleg Broytmann wrote: > On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 04:40:28PM +0300, Vetlugin Yury wrote: > > It`s not the proper question. The right one is "why not?". > > The proper answer for the question is "Because nobody cared. If you > care - please do. Patches for the code, the tests and the docs will be > gladly accepted." >
Ok, I`ve got it. > > AFAIK an object ID > > is allways more than zero. > > No, an object ID is just an opaque identifier without any meaning beyond > identification. > I know it can be whatever you want. But for now practicly every software I sow use 0..infinity integer values for ID (it means no zero IDs are used anywhere). Even for SQLObject it`s not the proper way of doing things - ID should never be less then zero - it could happens only when INT goes overflow (and shouldn`t be allowed anyway). > > nice to use MyClass.ID field instead of MyClass.MyID. > > Sorry, I do not understand that part about MyID. What are you talking > about? > I mean that In my class I have a field that have type "unsigned integer" and __it is__ object`s ID for my class. In my case I should use additional field named something like "MyID" with type UIntCol, instead of intuitive "ID" field created by SQLObject nativly. > > Well, I think > > IntCol(... unsigned=True) > > are much pretty. > > I don't think so. It's a matter of taste. > > Oleg. Well, it is. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ sqlobject-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sqlobject-discuss
