>The really funny thing about this: All of the examples I gave are at >least as field-like as the existing ManyToMany field.
Yep, that's why I started out with the BEHAVIOUR idea in my comment on this and dropped it - in the end, most stuff you will do to a model class will either be some kind of relation or some kind of field - or some mix of both. Sure, there might be non-field-none-relation behaviours people will add - but then those just are 'computed fields' kind of behaviour. So I am definitely +1 on putting that stuff directly into the model class and to say "every attribute contributes to the class" with "field types contribute columns" and "behaviour types contribute behaviour". bye, Georg (who after playing again a bit with RuleDispatch is rather sad that it isn't adopted - there are _loads_ of things in Django which might be modeled much easier with generic functions ;) )
