No because they never returns a Rows object. They return a record or None if not found. I think they are coorect as they are.
On Jun 1, 4:27 pm, "mr.freeze" <[email protected]> wrote: > Will do. Do you think it should be the same for Rows.first and > Rows.last? They currently return None if the record set is empty. > > On Jun 1, 4:25 pm, mdipierro <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I agree. If you can send me a patch today, I will add it to 1.79.1 > > > On Jun 1, 4:05 pm, "mr.freeze" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I think these functions should always return a Rows object, even if it > > > is empty. Currently they return an empty list if the record set is > > > empty. Thoughts?
