Thanks for the followup reply, Carl.
Yes, I think I was a bit confused regarding "for". Sounds fine.
Your points about scope creep and keeping the proposal as achievable as
possible is also noted.
If we're going to keep things simple, why are we introducing the idea of
inline "using" templates?
On 5 July 2011 02:20, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> Doesn't do anything to change my point, though: a framework can't go
> about stripping user input. That's a user-code decision. If Django
> strips out data I wanted, there's nothing I can do to get it back.
I concur. The consensus seems to be shift
On 9 Jul 2011, at 10:44, Sam Lai wrote:
> I concur. The consensus seems to be shifting towards a 'strip' flag
> though (defaulting to false), and I'm +1 on that. That would make it
> explicit, minimise repetitive boilerplate code and also make it less
> likely to accidentally forget to strip a fie
Hi Chris,
On 07/09/2011 02:50 AM, Chris Beaven wrote:
> If we're going to keep things simple, why are we introducing the idea of
> inline "using" templates?
That's a good question. I wouldn't be gutted at all if we dropped
inline-using from the initial scope, too, because I really think
separate
Howdy,
I'd like to share some findings I made recently with regards to deferred
constraint checks during test runs. There's a bit of background here
(https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/3615) and
here(https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/11665), but this is the gist of
what's going on now:
