Re: [SQLObject] Default Behaviour when notNull == False

[Brad B. <br...@bb...>]

On 05/01/03 12:20, Luke Opperman wrote:
> 
> > Yes, but "NULL" is just computerese for "no value". :)
> 
> Maybe in your world. :) Ok, I guess I'll concede for now. Was this
> whole discussion just about whether notNull=False should imply
> default=None? I'm still not convinced that my statement: "a field
> that CAN have a NULL (notNull=False), but that you still want
> explicitly declared (no default)"  is useless or gibberish, but
> that's probably such a rare case that .... screw 'em.

Optimizing for the common case. :)

Not forcing the programmer to specify default = None can save a heck
of a lot of typing, and happily keep SQLObject completely unsurprising.

-- 
Brad Bollenbach
BBnet.ca