On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Chris Beaven <smileych...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, January 21, 2011 12:35:58 PM UTC+13, Karen Tracey wrote: >> >> Rather, a BooleanField that raises an error on an attempt to save an >> instance that has no value set is what's being asked for. The quiet always >> defaulting to False does seem rather odd to me as well. >> > > The current behaviour still seems in-line with the behaviour a non-nullable > charfield (if not self.null, default to ''). > So, for consistency should we also make a not-null charfield fail loudly if > instanciated without a value ? :P > Really? Django makes the case[1] that "" means "no data" for char and text fields, as does None for integers, dates, and booleans. As far as I can tell, the behavior of all fields, except for BooleanField, is to default to the empty value supported by that field. Personally I see nothing wrong with that (though I suppose a case could be made against the "" default for CharFields, if someone wanted to). On the other hand, False is in no way an "empty value." The flip side of the question is, given the current behavior of BooleanFields, should we also make all not-null IntegerFields default to 0? Tobias [1] http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/ref/models/fields/#null -- Tobias McNulty, Managing Partner Caktus Consulting Group, LLC http://www.caktusgroup.com -- 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 django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en.
