Personally, I like the form exception thing, but if enough people think it's un-Pythonic or too expensive to use an exception for it, then I can get behind that.
I like a lot of the stuff in Joseph's proposal, especially the method of handling read-only fields (that would solve a lot of common problems people run into currently). There are two things that I'd like to see hammered out as we do this, though: 1. When, exactly, the "manipulator" (whatever name we end up choosing; I like Form) fills in default values. 2. A sexier syntax for using manipulators in views. Stripped of the form-as-exception, both these proposals boil down to almost the same basic pattern we see now. There's a lot to be said for not breaking compatibility with existing views, but it's always felt slightly clunky to me; I'd love to see something better. -- "May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house." -- George Carlin --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
