Re: Ticket 9483

2008-11-08 Thread varikin
> You try making an implementation of the actual English title casing > rules, and let me know how that goes. :P I would prefer not, though that sounds like a challenge:) > > str.title is a very simple title casing function, and there's a > reason for that. I completely understand. I was

Re: 1.1 feature: unify access to response.context in test client

2008-11-08 Thread Eric Holscher
Note also, that sometimes the context that you are looking for isn't always in [0]. I ran into this when I was writing testmaker, and had to hack around it. Luckily all of my templates used inheritance, so I didn't get bitten by the dictionary or list of dictionary part. I did something like

Re: 1.1 feature: unify access to response.context in test client

2008-11-08 Thread Russell Keith-Magee
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 5:56 AM, James Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > For 1.1, could we look into unifying the interface to > ``response.context`` to avoid this sort of problem? Unless I'm > thinking about this the wrong way, it shouldn't be too hard to > differentiate dictionary-style

Re: 1.1 feature: unify access to response.context in test client

2008-11-08 Thread Russell Keith-Magee
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 6:40 AM, Eric Holscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > For my pony request, it would be really nice to have a way to get "user > defined" context. This being things that were passed from views, set in > template tags, (and maybe other places?). That is what the above code is >

Re: 1.1 feature: unify access to response.context in test client

2008-11-08 Thread oggie rob
> I'd prefer backwards compatibility. The way I'm envisioning it would > complicate the code a bit, but I think preserving compatibility is > worth it: It would be nice to keep backwards compat, for the sole reason that the quickest way to test your code against a django upgrade is to run tests

Re: 1.1 feature: unify access to response.context in test client

2008-11-08 Thread James Bennett
On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 5:34 PM, Russell Keith-Magee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > However, to clarify - are you talking about a backwards incompatible > change, or are you talking about putting a backwards compatible layer > in place that tries to tell the difference between the two modes of >