I'm not sure yet, if it's worth the extra {% formdefaults %} tag. Ofcourse it
> prevents template authors from excidentally overriding defaults, but I think
> who will use these utilities must know about these implications anyway. It's
> somehow just reflecting the behaviour of a python module scope.
> But maybe I'm a bit too much programmer here and reflecting too much
> of my habits
> onto the template authors mind.
There are some key differences between this and Python module scope,
besides the usual "template authors aren't necessarily Python
programmers." The main one is that Python module scope is contained
within a single file; here we're talking about a global scope that
potentially extends across many template files, what with inheritance
and includes, and even into Python code files too. I think because of
this action-at-a-distance factor, there's a much greater need to make
the modification of global scope explicit, clear, and hard to do by
accident or overlook.
Maybe it could be useful to provide a test utility to make sure a layout can handle all
"standard cases".
I mean, if one wants to create a new layout and set it as the global default,
the layout should be tested. So a layout testing tool (or documented procedure)
would be great.
But I guess that is a bonus, not a required feature in the Gsoc.
Benoīt
--
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.
