Re: Default Pluralize logic

2008-05-06 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Regardless, the context for that discussion is quite > different to the context of this current discussion. I take back what I said on my last note. -Alen On May 6, 8:43 am, "Russell Keith-Magee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 2:16 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > <[EMAIL

Re: Default Pluralize logic

2008-05-06 Thread Russell Keith-Magee
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 2:16 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > You might want to check the date on that thread before you pull it in > > for moral support. > > If you bothered taking a look at the thread, you would have seen that > the decision to keep the pluralize simple

Re: Default Pluralize logic

2008-05-06 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> You might want to check the date on that thread before you pull it in > for moral support. If you bothered taking a look at the thread, you would have seen that the decision to keep the pluralize simple was discussed and probably introduced as the way forward at the time. Hence my reference.

Re: Default Pluralize logic

2008-05-05 Thread Russell Keith-Magee
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 6:10 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Important, related, post on the dev list: > > "Ditch pluralisation entirely" > >

Re: Default Pluralize logic

2008-05-05 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> So you still need to allow for the developer (me) to override the generated > plural. Only now it isn't as clear when I need to do that. With the > current rule, it is straightforward: if the word isn't pluralized by adding > an 's'. The idea is that you wouldn't have to override the

Re: Default Pluralize logic

2008-05-05 Thread Karen Tracey
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 8:20 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thank you for your replies. > > Just to confirm, I am not referring to a perfect automatic pluralize > solution. I am very well aware that a silver bullet solution would be > very difficult, if even possible. > > I

Re: Default Pluralize logic

2008-05-05 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thank you for your replies. Just to confirm, I am not referring to a perfect automatic pluralize solution. I am very well aware that a silver bullet solution would be very difficult, if even possible. I will try make myself more clear now. What I am specifically referring to is the

Re: Default Pluralize logic

2008-05-04 Thread Russell Keith-Magee
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 1:16 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Is it? Maybe. I don't know if anyone has proposed smartening-up Django's > > pluralization rules in the past > > I had a look through the mailing-list archive and couldn't spot > anything directly related.

Re: Default Pluralize logic

2008-05-04 Thread Michael Newman
I think you are assuming too much here. The verbose name and verbose name plurals are default pulled from a class name that might not necessarily make sense to my editors in the admin. I need to have some control to how it is actually displayed to the end user; no program is going to be

Re: Default Pluralize logic

2008-05-04 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Is it? Maybe. I don't know if anyone has proposed smartening-up Django's > pluralization rules in the past I had a look through the mailing-list archive and couldn't spot anything directly related. > (I'm not even sure if you are proposing it > here?). I pretty much am proposing it here. I

Re: Default Pluralize logic

2008-05-03 Thread Karen Tracey
On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 5:39 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Could someone please be kind to explain to me how the pluralize logic > works in django? > a.) pluralize template filter Doc for this is here: http://www.djangoproject.com/documentation/templates/#pluralize > b.)