> However, be prepared for the outcome that your code may be rejected
> and thrown away. In this case, the code is serving as a working
> implementation of your proposal, and we still haven't been convinced
> of your proposal. Just writing the code doesn't mean it will
> automatically get accepted
correctness tests, not performance tests.
> Any documentation suggestions are welcome, but django-dev isn't the
> right place. Work up a patch, and attach it to the ticket.
Will do.
Cheers,
Alex
On Sep 20, 7:45 am, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 12:35 PM
Hey,
As per Russ's request, I'm pinging this thread. Does my proposal seem
feasible to people more familiar with Django's guts than I?
Cheers,
Alex
On Sep 8, 9:38 am, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 12:35 PM, vegas wrote:
>
> > Okay, so
me urlpattern I'd be happy to work up a patch
following those outlines and run it through whatever tests are
desired.
Cheers,
Alex
On Sep 7, 2:59 pm, vegas wrote:
> Thanks for the pointer to previous discussion, will review and see if
> I can contribute something useful.
>
> Cheer
Thanks for the pointer to previous discussion, will review and see if
I can contribute something useful.
Cheers,
Alex
On Sep 6, 12:58 am, Karen Tracey wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 12:16 AM, vegas wrote:
>
> > Hi guys,
>
> > I was just doing some work, and I noticed
Hi guys,
I was just doing some work, and I noticed that passing args and kwargs
to reverse raises an exception which explicitly tells me not to do
that:
if args and kwargs:
raise ValueError("Don't mix *args and **kwargs in call to
reverse()!")
I don't see an obvious reason for
