Jason Chu wrote:
>
> I think it makes things simpler, yes. If there was an easy way to get a
> widget by name it would be nicer though, except your named-widget .display
> lines would get really ugly:
>
> field_by_name("blah").display(value_for(field_by_name("blah"),
> **options_for(field_by_name("blah"))
>
> You'd almost want a different display method, that passed all that stuff by
> default..
>
> form_display(field_by_name("blah"))
>
> And then you could pass overriding variables inside the form_display
> method... I don't know if we want something like that though.
>
Yep, I will address this soon, I've posted about it on my topic
regarding r913, this will work in this way:
display_field_for("blah", value_for("blah"), **options_for("blah"))
I've the working implementation here on my local tree.
Thanks for the feedback! ;-)
Ciao
Michele
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"TurboGears" 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
