On 10/04/2018 04:05 PM, Daniele Varrazzo wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 2:27 PM Federico Di Gregorio<fog@dndg.it> wrote:
>> On 10/04/2018 02:38 PM, Daniele Varrazzo wrote:
>>> A tiny improvement to SQL generation is already ready^W merged in
>>> #732: it will be possible to use `Identifier("schema", "name")` which
>>> would be rendered in dotted notation in the query. Currently
>>> `Identifier()` takes a single param so this extension is backward
>>> compatible and there is no need to introduce a new `Composable` type
>>> to represent dotted sequences of identifiers.
>> I understand that from a compatibility point of view everything works
>> with the "schema", "name" order of arguments (you just switch on the
>> number of arguments) but usually such approach causes infinite headaches
>> when you remove or add the namespace from the call.
>>
>> `Identifier(name, schema=None)` is better, IMHO because makes explicit
>> that the mandatory and first argument is always the identifier itself,
>> while the schema is optional.
> "schema", "table" is only an example: it could be "table"."field",
> even "schema"."table"."field", or "extension"."setting"... The object
> only wants to represent a dotted sequence of identifiers, at lexical
> level, nothing with semantics attached such as "an optionally
> schema-qualified table name" or "a field name". If the object was
> `Table()` or `Field()` rather than `Identifier()` I'd totally agree
> with you.
Sorry, I misread your example. Obviously you're right.
federico
p.s. yep, I'll remove all the old cruft from sandbox.
--
Federico Di Gregorio federico.digregorio@dndg.it
DNDG srl http://dndg.it
The number of the beast: vi vi vi. -- Delexa Jones
