On 06/01/14 00:26, Aymeric Augustin wrote:
> On 5 janv. 2014, at 22:54, Shai Berger wrote:
>
>> I'd go for __contains__:
>>
>> if "django.contrib.auth" in apps:
>
> I considered this one but I didn’t select it because it will restrict our
> freedom in the future.
>
> If I were to add mag
On 26/12/13 11:47, Aymeric Augustin wrote:
> On 26 déc. 2013, at 00:22, Luc Saffre wrote:
>
>> But your implementation is more beautiful than mine, and I'm looking
>> forward to retire my djangosite project as soon as possible.
>
> I wouldn’t say “beautiful” as muc
On 24/12/13 12:23, Aymeric Augustin wrote:
>
> Of course I’m happy to provide feedback and supervision to
> contributors who’d like to tackle some of these items. Just get in
> touch before you start coding to avoid duplicate work.
Hey Aymeric, thanks for your work! I am not a core developer, but
On 12.02.2010 14:01, Tom Evans wrote:
> I think the easiest way of understanding the behaviour is that
> specifying a field like this:
>
>owner = models.ForeignKey(Owner)
>
> specifies a contract. The contract says that when you access this
> attribute on an instance, it will only return an i
On 12.02.2010 13:39, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
>
> Hopefully that clarifies why Django works the way it does.
Yes, it does. Thank you, Russel.
> However,
> even if, hypothetically, we were to accept that Django's current
> behavior is in error, (...) there is an enormous issue of practicality.
On 12.02.2010 12:08, Gary Reynolds wrote:
>
> Are you saying that the correct behaviour is to throw an IntegrityError
> as opposed to a DoesNotExist on accessing the field?
No. It should raise no exception at all. The expression should yield
None. It should not be forbidden for an instance to con
en when you try to save it:
>>> t.save()
Traceback (most recent call last):
...
IntegrityError: 20100212_thing.owner_id may not be NULL
How can you not understand that the DoesNotExist exception above is
risen too early? It is a bug!
Luc
On 12.02.2010 6:24, hcarvalhoalves wro
Thank you, Tamas. Yes, that's what I mean. Without you I might have come
to believe that something is wrong with my brain...
And yes, I can live with it. It's just a pity that others will stumble
on it just because it isn't documented.
Luc
On 10.02.2010 19:30, Tamas Szabo wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Well,
On 19.01.2010 23:26, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> Finally, we ruminated over the difficulties in building rich internet
> applications. Sure, writing HTML/CSS/JS/Python/SQL by hand works fine,
> but we doesn't really have a good answer for the people who want
> something IDE or GUI-ish. Meanwhile, Ad
jango while deploying with a legacy database.
>
> On 8 fev, 20:31, Luc Saffre wrote:
>> You cannot ask user code to not even look at invalid data. I'm
>> not allergic to exceptions, but raising an exception when I ask for the
>> content of a field is not appropri
Thanks, Karen, for your explanations which are very clear. I accept the
community's decision and won't bother you any longer. And maybe one day
I will even understand why this behaviour is not odd.
Luc
On 9.02.2010 17:03, Karen Tracey wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 3:02 A
On 9.02.2010 1:09, Karen Tracey wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 5:31 PM, Luc Saffre
> I personally won't insist
> further, especially since Luke knows Django better than me. May I
> suggest again to mark this ticket to something different than "duplicate
>
Luke, thank you for your explanations. If I answer once more, then I do
it in the hope that our discussion may help to improve Django.
On 8.02.2010 0:38, Luke Plant wrote:
> It is easy to fix - a few lines in
> ReverseSingleRelatedObjectDescriptor - because the behaviour there is
> not accidenta
On 7.02.2010 3:06, Luke Plant wrote:
> 1. ForeignKey fields are different from simple values, in that they
> cause database lookups (the only logical exception being nullable
> foreign keys with a PK of None), so it's reasonable for them to behave
> differently.
Luke, I disagree with your expl
Hello,
I am trying to understand why Luke closed my ticket #12801
(http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/12801).
Luke, don't get me wrong. Thank you for having taken the time to decide
upon this and my other ticket #12708. I agreed with you for marking
#12708 as invalid, because I didn't understan
On 18.06.2009 14:05, Ramiro Morales wrote:
>
> Why do you thing there should be a automatically created one to one
> relationship from Customer to Contact named "contact"?.
Why I think there should be a automatic one-to-one relation from
Customer to Contact? Because that's what the MTI documenta
16 matches
Mail list logo
