> > Yes, that definitely falls into the category of relying on an > implementation detail, rather than something that should be mentioned > as a backwards incompatibility. At the level of inspecting code > objects (which is essentially what your code was doing), almost any > change is backwards incompatible. 'view_func' is not only not > documented, it is a member of a class which is private and marked as > such - _CheckLogin. >
Yeah, I expected that. At the time I wrote it (a while back now) I was a bit worried it could/should have been done better by me; lesson learned. Personally, I'd use this as an opportunity to find a more robust way > of getting that information to the template tag :-) > Fair call! I'll plug away at that and if I have any more questions I'll move my questioning over to django-users. Thanks, Gary--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to django-develop...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en.
