Re: auto_now_add overwrites a given date

2007-07-05 Thread Noam Raphael
Thanks! Ok, I see that the problem is more complicated than I thought, so I'll leave it that way. I just want to add that if you decide that you don't like the current behaviour, you can always use FutureWarning, to first warn if a value was set and is about to be discarded, and then change the

Re: auto_now_add overwrites a given date

2007-07-05 Thread Noam Raphael
On 7/5/07, Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's a backwards-incompatible change, so we'd need a strong reason to > change it. [...] > This line of reasoning is unfortunately not particularly strong. The > problem is that one group of people might find the current behaviour of > so

Re: Unicode field names

2007-06-13 Thread Noam Raphael
Thanks a lot - I switched to the unicode branch and it works very nice! I'll report any bugs I encounter. Noam On 13/06/07, Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 21:16 +, Noam wrote: > > Hello, > > > > First of all, I apologize if I post this in the wrong for

Re: Allowing multiple {% block %}s in one template

2007-06-11 Thread Noam Raphael
Ok, I posted my patch at http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/4529 On 10/06/07, Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > By the way, one advantage of writing the functionality you want as an > extra tag (something not called "block") is that you (or anybody else > who wants to work this wa

Re: Allowing multiple {% block %}s in one template

2007-06-09 Thread Noam Raphael
Ok, I've implemented my suggestion. For those concerned about the complexity of implementation, it turns out that all that's needed is a simple change in the block parser, to make it return the same object for all blocks with the same name in a template. The rendering code wasn't touched at all.

Re: Allowing multiple {% block %}s in one template

2007-06-08 Thread Noam Raphael
> Aside from the "urgh!" factor from writing the content in multiple > times, if you are going to do this, why not just create a "reuse-block" > tag that re-inserts the block value the template parser has already > worked out previously? Doesn't need any change to the behaviour of > "block" then.

Re: Allowing multiple {% block %}s in one template

2007-06-08 Thread Noam Raphael
On 08/06/07, Marty Alchin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 6/8/07, Noam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Let me improve my suggestion, so that it mostly solves James' concern > > and can be explained in one sentence: > > > > - > > Multiple blocks with the same name would be allowed, as long