coerce_to_bool for where(), having(), etc.

[Mike Bayer]

so that expressions like select().where(table.c.booleancol) have a hook to evaluate into "booleancol == 1" (also what does a negation do at the moment, "NOT 1" ?). see how bad this would be for 0.9.

[Mike Bayer]

heh, see also #2823 where I'm saying that we don't want to do this, though sort of looking at it differently.

true/false on a system that doesn't support t/f, it's going to be 1 or 0. If we say that any boolean type including true/false that is evaluated in any kind of context that is not a comparison just becomes "<val> == 1", that might be a solution for this and also #2823.

[Mike Bayer]

starting out with an approach for short circuiting as well as treatment of None in ticket_2804 branch, 1227103f0d1633a418a68b7269d7136f.

[Mike Bayer]

also #2739 affected

[Mike Bayer]

also #2739 affected.

[Mike Bayer]

f035b6e0a41238d092ea2dd

[Mike Bayer]

Removing milestone: 0.9.0 (automated comment)

[Mike Bayer]

• Fixes to the newly enhanced boolean coercion in 2804 where the new rules for "where" and "having" woudn't take effect for the "whereclause" and "having" kw arguments of the :func:.select construct, which is also what :class:.Query uses so wasn't working in the ORM either. fixes #3013 re: #2804

→ <<cset 2e5c8913a8e1>>