Right now, it passes TD(widget, _class='w2p_fw') to the lambda, but Ray would prefer it simply pass widget to the lambda so he can wrap the widget and the comment in a single TD (I think). I guess the downside of that is you lose the automatic class assignment (though maybe it could go in a div or span instead). I wonder if it would make more sense for the lambda option to work more like formstyle='divs' -- no outer wrapper (i.e., no TABLE or UL), and just let the lambda function produce the appropriate markup for each input field "row".
Anthony On Saturday, December 24, 2011 11:40:31 AM UTC-5, Massimo Di Pierro wrote: > > I agree but it ugly but it is actually more poweful because you have > access to the entire widget as opposed to only one of its components. > I think we should live this one alone. > > On Dec 24, 8:58 am, Anthony <[email protected]> wrote: > > I agree, but may be a backward compatibility issue (though I suspect > usage > > of the lambda option is quite rare). > > > > Anthony > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, December 24, 2011 4:39:58 AM UTC-5, Ray (a.k.a. Iceberg) > wrote: > > > > > Hi Massimo, > > > > > I just discovered the lovely formstyle=lambda ... feature. (http:// > > > web2py.com/books/default/chapter/29/7?search=formstyle) > > > > > It saves me from the headache of css. However, it is strange that the > > > value of "field_widget" parameter is a TD instance. Should it better > > > be a raw widget instance? > > > > > Example. Right now I have to use the ugly ".comonents[0]" notation: > > > > > crud.settings.formstyle = lambda record_id, field_label, > > > field_widget, field_comment: TR( > > > field_label, DIV(field_widget.components[0], field_comment)) > > > > > I prefer: > > > > > crud.settings.formstyle = lambda record_id, field_label, > > > field_widget, field_comment: TR( > > > field_label, DIV(field_widget, field_comment)) > > > > > If you like this idea, tell me to open an issue to track its progress. > > > > > Regards, > > > Ray
