On Saturday, August 30, 2014 12:58:18 PM UTC+2, Aymeric Augustin wrote: > > If it weren’t for backwards compatibility, we could recursively merge > dicts from user settings into defaults settings. For example > https://github.com/django/django/pull/3138 achieves that in > override_settings. >
And what would that give us? if I want override FOO['BAR'] where from would I override FOO with that merging behavior in place? Considering how many settings we’ve turned into dicts, I’m wondering if we > should accept the consequences and implement the merging behavior. We’d > have to make sure that setting a key to None is equivalent to not providing > it at all. We could take this opportunity to review default values for > settings, as we’ve already done in a few specific cases. > Wondering if None is a good value or if it rather should be some sentinel object. That said since it only affects dicts, I think one usually doesn't have a value in the dict if usage isn't wanted, so None might be a good sentinel anyways. Cheers, Florian -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/b116da00-d7fa-4591-b133-335a537f6673%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
