Okay, so I am definitely +1 on the proposal, I liked the more Pythonic syntax a lot. I was a bit shocked when I saw the change on ticket #122 this morning, because I was hoping it would get incorporated. I would still like for it to be incorporated in some different way, so that we can have both.
> The first problem I have with the new syntax for models is that it > makes it unclear what's a field and what's metadata:: > > class Model(meta.Model) > field1 = meta.CharField(...) > admin = meta.Admin(...) > field2 = meta.IntegerField(...) I think this was fixed in the latest version of the proposal. There was a class Meta going on somewhere that would handle all the meta.Admin() and other meta-things like that, so that just the fields would be declared as class variables. Even if the semantics are not entirely consistent with Python's default semantics, I think that by inheriting from meta.Model and defining *Field()'s it is clear enough that the developer is not working with the exact Python semantics, but with the magic inferred from the meta.Model. So I hope we could still get this in. Prime reason: because I'm lazy! Regards, Manuzhai
