Re: [SQLObject] Proposal: change .get(int) to .get_id(int)

[Jeremy F. <je...@go...>]

On Wed, 2004-07-21 at 20:10 -0700, Mike Watkins wrote:
> So it would be handy, and mildly stylish to be able to define our own
> get() without breaking the insides of SQLObject. Admittedly it will be
> more cumbersome to type three more digits when we are really after the
> "id" attribute/relation.
> 
> default - no "get()"
> 
> current "get()" changes to "get_id()" or something else.

I personally think the transition from .new -> .get is a step backwards.
It feels wrong to me that instantiating a SQLObject has the side effect
of creating a new table row, since I don't see SQLObjects as being
synonymous with table rows - I see them as just being useful local
handles for table rows.  Therefore it makes most sense to me that Foo
(id) creates a local reference to foo.id in the database, and Foo.new()
creates a new row.

Also, I get things a lot more than I create them, so adding .get()
everywhere is a fair amount of extra typing.

	J