On 2/20/06, hugo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >There currently seems to be a bit of redundancy with regards to the > >"blank" and "null" field options > > So I am -1 on the proposal to get rid of one of those two. Every > combination (even null=True and blank=False - think about legacy data) > makes sense. And it is not a repetition, as both work on different > layers.
What are your thoughts on the modified proposal stated in my reply to Luke (i.e., keep both, but have blank automatically set to True when null=True and then allow the explicit setting of blank=False)? As for every combination making sense, this may be the case — but instances when blank and null are set to the inverse of one another will be quite rare IMHO (especially the inverse of your example: blank=True and null=False, although perhaps some custom manipulator magic would come into play there), and the default case should make life easier for those 90%+ cases where one expects that being able to save null values implies that one should be able to submit blank form values. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
