On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Dan Watson <[email protected]> wrote: > Wouldn't this be a backwards-incompatible change at this point? It > would clash with any model fields named "update".
Technically, yes. However, if we interpret the backwards-compatibility requirement this strictly it basically prevents us adding any new features since someone, somewhere, might have defined something with that name, too. We take a slightly more reasonable approach to backwards compatibly as detailed at http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/misc/api-stability/#what-stable-means. Read that carefully: nothing there prevents us from adding a method named update. What'll actually happen, by the way, if someone's got a field named `update` is that the field will actually shadow the method, not the other way around. That's good because it doesn't outright break user code, but it's still generally a booboo. We can -- and should -- add a validation warning that complains about a field named `update`. Jacob --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
