On 2/18/07, oggie rob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I find it useful to have the {% for %} tag syntax extended so that one can
> > write:
> > {% for a,b in L %} meaning the obvious thing
+1.
> > Also (maybe more contentious):
> > {% for i in L1,L2 %} meaning what one would write in python
> I find it useful to have the {% for %} tag syntax extended so that one can
> write:
> {% for a,b in L %} meaning the obvious thing
+1
> Also (maybe more contentious):
> {% for i in L1,L2 %} meaning what one would write in python as:
> for i in zip(L1,L2)
+0
On 2/18/07, Gary Wilson <[EMAIL P
On Feb 17, 3:58 pm, "Honza Král" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/17/07, oggie rob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I find it useful to have the {% for %} tag syntax extended so that one
> > > can write:
> > > {% for a,b in L %} meaning the obvious thing
>
> +1
+1
The {{ x.0 }} syntax is simply
On Sat, 2007-02-17 at 09:27 -0800, Simon G. wrote:
> Hi Djangonauts,
>
> I've gone on a bit of a triage rampage tonight (..and this morning),
> and there are many tickets regarding edit_inline bugs, and there are
> *many* more that are marked as dupes. If someone can fix this up a
> bit, this wil
On Feb 17, 11:29 am, "Arnaud Delobelle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I find it useful to have the {% for %} tag syntax extended so that one
> can write:
> {% for a,b in L %} meaning the obvious thing
+1 from me, too. Nicer than the current idiom.
--
Jeff Bauer
Rubicon, Inc.
--~--~-~--
> You can do this of course but it does not help to make sense of the
> template. E.g.
>
> {% for key,value in L %}
> {{ key }}->{{ value }}
> {% endfor %}
Yes, however you're looking at the case of only two variables. Think
of how unmanageable it will start to look like this:
{% for name,descr
[...]
> If you change the tuples into dictionaries in the view, you can get
> the same kind of clarity (and that's what I find myself doing quite a
> bit, actually):
>
> {% for x in L %}
> {{ x.name }}
> {{ x.description }}
> {% endfor %}
>
Yes I found myself doing that a lot too until I
On Feb 17, 9:48 pm, "oggie rob" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I find it useful to have the {% for %} tag syntax extended so that one can
> > write:
> > {% for a,b in L %} meaning the obvious thing
>
> You can do this. a,b return type is implicitly (a,b) in Python. In
> other words:
> {% for x
On Feb 17, 2007, at 4:58 PM, Honza Král wrote:
> On 2/17/07, oggie rob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> I find it useful to have the {% for %} tag syntax extended so
>>> that one can write:
>>> {% for a,b in L %} meaning the obvious thing
>
> +1
>
>>
>> You can do this. a,b return type is imp
On 2/17/07, oggie rob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I find it useful to have the {% for %} tag syntax extended so that one can
> > write:
> > {% for a,b in L %} meaning the obvious thing
+1
>
> You can do this. a,b return type is implicitly (a,b) in Python. In
> other words:
> {% for x in L %
> I find it useful to have the {% for %} tag syntax extended so that one can
> write:
> {% for a,b in L %} meaning the obvious thing
You can do this. a,b return type is implicitly (a,b) in Python. In
other words:
{% for x in L %}
{{ x.0 }}
{{ x.1 }}
{% endfor %}
> Also (maybe more contentiou
Hi,
I just ran into a peculiar behavior of Django's admin interface:
if a user has a delete permission for some model, but no change
permission, how can he delete an object when he is not allowed on the
object listing ??
I have a page with a discussion in it and I don't want people to
change other
On 2/17/07, Simon G. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've gone on a bit of a triage rampage tonight (..and this morning),
> and there are many tickets regarding edit_inline bugs, and there are
> *many* more that are marked as dupes. If someone can fix this up a
> bit, this will clean out a lot of bug
On 2/17/07, Gary Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can't speak for other developers, but I'm just looking for some
> direction on where to focus my spare time in the days leading up to
> the sprint, as I would like to see 0.96 get out the door.
I've got a list of stuff that we're holding on;
Hi everyone,
I have been using django with great pleasure and there is a slight
extension to the {% for ... in ... %} default tag I would like to
propose.
I find it useful to have the {% for %} tag syntax extended so that one
can write:
{% for a,b in L %} meaning the obvious thing
Also (maybe m
Hi Djangonauts,
I've gone on a bit of a triage rampage tonight (..and this morning),
and there are many tickets regarding edit_inline bugs, and there are
*many* more that are marked as dupes. If someone can fix this up a
bit, this will clean out a lot of bug (and some are quite serious -
leading
What's the plan for 0.96? I know of a few patches that are waiting
for post-0.96 to break backwards compatibility. Jacob mentioned a
release coming in a week or so in his Moving towards Django 1.0 post,
but that was now 5 weeks ago. Since PyCon is next week, is the plan
to use that sprint time
On 2/17/07, voltron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> class UserManager(models.Manager):
> def create_user(self, username, email, password):
> "Creates and saves a User with the given username, e-mail and
> password."
> now = datetime.datetime.now()
> user = self.model(Non
On Sat, 2007-02-17 at 00:33 -0800, voltron wrote:
> Forgive if its so obvious, I have´nt coded in Python for a while.
> While poking around in the Django internals, I saw this:
>
> # snip
>
> class UserManager(models.Manager):
> def create_user(self, username, email, password):
> "Cr
Forgive if its so obvious, I have´nt coded in Python for a while.
While poking around in the Django internals, I saw this:
# snip
class UserManager(models.Manager):
def create_user(self, username, email, password):
"Creates and saves a User with the given username, e-mail and
passwor
On Feb 15, 10:53 pm, Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-02-15 at 06:02 -0800, Rudolph wrote:
> > Hi,
>
> > I think I found a bug introduced in changeset 4500 (http://
> > code.djangoproject.com/changeset/4500). When a min_num_in_admin is
> > specified without a num_in_adm
21 matches
Mail list logo
