On Wednesday, September 24, 2014 3:32:00 PM UTC-4, Niphlod wrote: > > Ok, good points, but I'd be careful to support something (this or anything > else) for a reason resembling "it's not prohibited, it worked --> needs to > be stable". Bugs can be found, lack of documentation too, it's not said > that something built on a "bug" or a shortcoming of the code should be > supported for the next century :-P > I'm not arguing on "should we do it or not" but given it's not documented, > at least there's the possibility to discuss wheter it should be or not a > "stable" thing. >
I agree. In this case, though, I think it's easy to restore backward compatibility, so I don't see much harm. > For readonly fields, yep. For inputs, I'd say no > Virtual fields have writable=False by default, so they are always displayed as read only. I agree, wouldn't make sense for input. > Given that it's a pretty specific piece of code that "excluded" virtual > fields from forms, I'd argue it has been done for a specific reason (or a > specific request...). > Good point. I didn't know extra_fields was added and am not sure of the rationale. Perhaps the originator can chime in. Anthony -- Resources: - http://web2py.com - http://web2py.com/book (Documentation) - http://github.com/web2py/web2py (Source code) - https://code.google.com/p/web2py/issues/list (Report Issues) --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "web2py-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
