2009/10/23 Chris McDonough :
> I don't think there's anything in particular in the way. I'd like to have
> some concrete use cases before we add the code, because it could be
> difficult to document.
We have this particular use-case (we might not have it anymore, but
for the record):
You want tr
Malthe Borch wrote:
> 2009/10/22 Chris McDonough :
>> Do we just need to change the path matching syntax instead to get your
>> *.html case to work? Is there another case for predicates?
>
> I think that in general, predicates make sense without the view on
> s. Is there anything in the way of le
2009/10/22 Chris McDonough :
> Do we just need to change the path matching syntax instead to get your
> *.html case to work? Is there another case for predicates?
I think that in general, predicates make sense without the view on
s. Is there anything in the way of letting them act upon
``route.ma
Malthe Borch wrote:
> 2009/10/22 Tres Seaver :
>> The view predicates are there to allow selecting a particular view among
>> several registered for the route or context: e.g., to dispatch to
>> different views for GET versus POST for the same route / context and
>> view name.
>
> It makes perfec
2009/10/22 Tres Seaver :
> The view predicates are there to allow selecting a particular view among
> several registered for the route or context: e.g., to dispatch to
> different views for GET versus POST for the same route / context and
> view name.
It makes perfect sense with .
With , however
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Malthe Borch wrote:
> Currently the predicates pertain only to views, regardless of whether
> they're declared using a or a directive (or using the
> ``bfg_view`` decorator).
>
> I would expect that if you declare a predicate on the route, that the
