Re: Default collection class for unordered relations

> if we had a totally explicit "collection class is required" approach,
> that would be something different (like, cant use "list" as a
> collection unless order_by is present).  We might just say in any case
> that "order_by" is required with "list"....but then that might be too
> steep a change for 0.4 to 0.5, and also it gets a little weird in that
> we dont necessarily know how well the collection is list-like/set-like.

Yeah, it's definitely tricky, and I could certainly see the behavior
as confusing to new users.  The pedant in me tends to think that lists
are appropriate only when there is an explicit ordering for a
collection -- as with orderinglist -- and that sets/multisets should
be used in most other circumstances; if an arbitrary order is needed,
the collection can be sorted in Python.  That said, it's really
convenient to not have to worry about that, even if it's not 100%
"correct."
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sqlalchemy" group.
To post to this group, send email to sqlalchemy <at> googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sqlalchemy-unsubscribe <at> googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---