Contract python programming job in Sydney

Hi folks, This message was crossposted to django-users. We're looking to hire a contract python programmer (preferably one with experience in django) for a short job - about 8 weeks. Location: Chatswood, Sydney, Australia Type: Contract When: ASAP until about end of feb. Brief description: New

Re: Django Ajax Redux

"Robert Wittams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > I think #925 is very important. A 'component' effectively becomes a > template-tag + a processor. This can be used to create a 'component' > generic view for partial page updates. Needs more thought (preserving > oth

Re: Potentially confusing urlconf error messages

# Not particularly clever, but in a Django request context you could # argue that "//" == "//" == "/" and change the url pattern logic # appropriately. Or just remove all leading slashes from any URLconf entry's regex. -- Jonathan Daugherty http://www.parsed.org

Re: Potentially confusing urlconf error messages

On 12 Dec 2005, at 3:20, pbx wrote: I thought someone else might have a more clever approach. Not particularly clever, but in a Django request context you could argue that "//" == "//" == "/" and change the url pattern logic appropriately. Afternoon

Potentially confusing urlconf error messages

This is a minor nit, but: > Using the URLconf defined in foo.urls, Django tried these URL patterns, in > this order: > >1. ^admin/ >2. ^/$ > > The current URL, /, didn't match any of these. Now, *we* know that there's an implicit "/" at the beginning of those rules (as the docs say, "Th

Re: Descriptors for fields?

> This makes about as much sense as "The police shouldn't fine me for speeding when they could be out catching murderers." That we have other features required doesn't mean we are not allowed to think about this one. My point is (as well as trying to improve the query capabilities) that if we are

Re: Descriptors for fields?

oggie rob wrote: > I would still avoid pluralization, if that was implied. Also you would > need to add "count", "values", "bulk" etc but that seems natural enough > from your suggestion (e.g. reporter.articles.count) I would imagine that count could be done using __len__ on the list proxy. Ie yo

Re: Chinese Simplified po file updated

OK, got it. Thanks. Hiweed Leng

Re: Descriptors for fields?

I would still avoid pluralization, if that was implied. Also you would need to add "count", "values", "bulk" etc but that seems natural enough from your suggestion (e.g. reporter.articles.count) So by implication you could filter on the reporter object also? e.g. reporter.filter(first_name__start

Re: Django Ajax Redux

Using classes it's not clear if it's there to style an element or to pass params to some js widget or whatever. When using custom attrs it's much clearer what's going on. I couldn't disagree more. :) class is there to 'subclass' elements. The W3C themselves say

Re: Descriptors for fields?

Maniac wrote: > > Robert Wittams wrote: > >> reporter.articles >> reporter.articles.filter(headline__startswith='This').order_by('headline') >> >> reporter.articles.add(headline="John's second story", >> pub_date=datetime(2005, 7, 29)) >> >> >> ? >> >> > The only objection I can think of is th

Re: Descriptors for fields?

Robert Wittams wrote: reporter.articles reporter.articles.filter(headline__startswith='This').order_by('headline') reporter.articles.add(headline="John's second story", pub_date=datetime(2005, 7, 29)) ? The only objection I can think of is that such property notation implies the notion th

Re: Descriptors for fields?

>reporter.articles >reporter.articles.filter(headline__startswith='This').order_by('headline') >reporter.articles.add(headline="John's second story", >pub_date=datetime(2005, 7, 29)) >article.reporter >article.reporter.id Looks good to me. bye, Georg

Re: Descriptors for fields?

This looks really cool, and you'll get +1 from me. Espen

Re: Descriptors for fields?

> > > It's very clean, it makes a lot of logical sense, and it feels a bit > more Pythonic (to me, at least) than the current methods and the other > proposals. > > +1 to this over anything else that's been suggested. Its pretty orthogonal to most of the other suggestions. However, I think us

Re: Removing the magic

On 12/11/05, Tim Keating <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm approximately -235 on multiple sytaxes. This is one of the reasons > I'm no longer using Zope. Yeah, I'm completely against the syntax I suggested on the wiki page. What I'm concentrating on at the moment is the other magic removal -- stop

Re: Removing the magic

Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote: > I'm -0.9 on the ".q" syntax, and -1 on having two competing lookup > syntaxes. I'm approximately -235 on multiple sytaxes. This is one of the reasons I'm no longer using Zope. TK

Re: Removing the magic

I second Hugo's take on the syntax. In general, anything that moves away from a syntax for field lookup that differs from both the template language AND Python gets a big thumbs up from me. But I also prefer the syntax suggested in #980.

Re: Descriptors for fields?

> So, how would people feel about: > reporter.get_article_list(headline__startswith='This', > order_by=['headline']) > changing to: > reporter.articles.filter(headline__startswith='This').order_by('headline') Very nice. +1 for me.

Re: Descriptors for fields?

On 12/11/05, Robert Wittams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > changing to: > > reporter.articles > reporter.articles.filter(headline__startswith='This').order_by('headline') > reporter.articles.add(headline="John's second story", > pub_date=datetime(2005, 7, 29)) > > And > > changing to: > > article.re

Descriptors for fields?

I was thinking a bit more about the magic we currently have. Assuming the model in http://www.djangoproject.com/documentation/models/many_to_one/ So, how would people feel about: reporter.get_article_list() reporter.get_article_list(headline__startswith='This', order_by=['headline']) reporter.