As I did not get answer from the user list, I try on the dev list.
Such consistency may also be nice in the {1[2}.O coming.
-------- Message original --------
Sujet: Re: Consistency between Django syndication framework & generic
views (at least)
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 00:46:16 -0800 (PST)
De: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Répondre à :: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pour :: Django users <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Forum :: gmane.comp.python.django.user
Références:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Up, unless I need to move it to django-dev list ?
On 20 nov, 14:30, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> After reading and viewing the screencast on syndication framework [1],
> I let a comment on the site where the "obj" comes from ?
>
> Michael points me to the right url and the answer in the doc [2]
>
> [1] <http://blog.michaeltrier.com/2007/10/17/django-screencasts-
> episode-001>
> [2] <http://www.djangoproject.com/documentation/syndication_feeds/#a-
> simple-example>
>
> My concerns is that even if it's two distinct features of Django,
> naming convention should be the same I think and that "object" should
> be used instead of "obj". At least for consistence purposes.
>
> I do not know if it applies to other part of Django.
>
> Does it make sense ?
>
> Nicolas
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
