On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 16:34 +0200, Johannes Dollinger wrote:
[...]
> tpl.render(Context({}, loader=PrefixLoader(['a', 'b', 'c'])))
> }}}
>
> This would fix #2949, #3544, #4278, #6834, and #7931. But it's a
> backwards incompatible change: If you rely on compile time side
> effects (e.g. {%
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 9:29 PM, David Durham, Jr.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I did find more information here:
>
> http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/internals/contributing/
>
> But this method appears to only run the tests in tests, not the tests
> in django/contrib/formtools/tests. Is
> So I'm working on tests for this, and I can see the pattern for
> writing tests by looking at django.contrib.formtools.tests.py, but I
> don't see what the infrastructure is, if any, for running these tests.
> The documentation here doesn't seem to have the info I need
>
>
Hi, Erik.
The main purpose is to have declarative form of composition field
calculation definition. Not to write imperative actions/signal
connection/etc.
I've made only flexible generic solution. In future I plan to write
high-level subclasses that will can with minimal input parameters make
>> http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/9200
>
> I see this pattern a lot, and I guess it will be quite useful - I was
> just thinking about writing someting like this class myself.
> I have marked the ticked as "Need Docs" and "Need tests", and the status as
> DDN.
So I'm working on tests for
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 1:09 PM, zvoase <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Just wondering if I could ask how compatible Django is with CPython
> 2.6. I know that it should work fine anyway, but I thought it a good
> idea just to check. Has anyone looked into this?
>
>
There are no known problems with
Search the archives. This has been discussed a few times before. I
believe someone (Karen?) has even been testing for 2.6 compatibility
and a few changesets have been committed specifically for that
purpose. IIRC, the policy is to support 2.6 where-ever practical as
long as it doesn't break
Hi,
Just wondering if I could ask how compatible Django is with CPython
2.6. I know that it should work fine anyway, but I thought it a good
idea just to check. Has anyone looked into this?
Regards,
Zack
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you
I was just wondering.. Why all this abstraction?
Why do we need a separate field for denormalization? Can't we just use
regular fields and simply set up denormalization in a procedural way
in the constructor? All that needs to be done to create a denormalized
field is connect a few signals
Hello,
This is directed at the benevolent dictators for life, Django.
With Django 1.0 out the door, I was curious about the status of the
Django book-- specifically if there is anything I could do to help with
updating it for Django 1.0. The last post I saw about it said that the
book would be
Hi, guys!
For a long time I have thoughts to make composition/denormalisation a
little bit easier and reusable. But I have no time to implement my
ideas.
Inspired by Anrew's blog post and its thread I recently wrote some
code. And I think that it really may be useful and cover most of
11 matches
Mail list logo
