On Jan 1, 2010, at 12:33 PM, James PIC wrote: > Thanks for explaining to me more complex reasons for committing: > > def myview(request): > template_name = '...' > return render_to_response(template_name...) > > Instead of what i believe is "just better" in *any* case: > > def myview(request, template_name = '...'): > return render_to_response(template_name...)
Well, if the template used is conditional (as is sometimes the case) then the second approach isn't helpful. But in general I agree the latter is better. Is it worth going through all the views in Pinax and changing them? With the caveat above, probably. Would we reject an external app until it fixed this? Probably not. > Of course, we can live peacefully with this disagreement (as i said > I've found a work around). We don't disagree, there are just 100s of things I'd like to get done before 1.0. > Why not allow the upstream app developers to make their app directly > usable directly both with and without Pinax? I'm not clear what we are doing that prevents this. Also, I am confused that you are on the one hand saying we should reject apps that don't follow conventions (like template_name in the view parameters) and saying we should not force app developers to do things a particular way. James -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Pinax Core Development" 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/pinax-core-dev?hl=en.
