Jorge Godoy wrote:
>
> But you're supposing that "common_widget" is *one* widget only. What if it is
> a "list" (I'd write set but we have it in Python as well, so... ;-)) of them?
>
Same applies, you have to deffer the widget creation to when you
effectively use it.
As I said if we want to fix something like this to work I have a pretty
straightforward patch that works, still I'm not sure suggesting to nest
WidgetsList is something we should do, it looks so ugly. :P
> I'll check this and it solves the problem for me in an ugly way -- I'd rather
> have all my widgets inside widgets.WidgetsList derived classes instead of
> mixing functions and classes to write them. Specially because there are
> cases where the widget alone makes sense and should be usable to build a
> form... So, can I do, with the above code:
>
> my_form = widgets.TableForm(fields = common_widget())
>
wrap it inside a list:
my_form = widgets.TableForm(fields = [common_widget()])
I can't see the problem, you're just using a single widget so you need
to wrap it in a list, but this is saving you [index] in the WidgetsList
declaraion, or you can also do if you:
def common_widget(in_list=False):
if in_list:
return [TextField()]
else:
return TextField()
then:
class MyWidgets(WidgetsList):
name = TextField()
common = common_widget
my_form = widgets.TableForm(fields = common_widget(True))
Ciao
Michele
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"TurboGears Trunk" 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/turbogears-trunk
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
