Sure, this probably involves allowing Form instance definition by
composition with a new object (ie. FormConfiguration,
ModelFormConfiguration ...) rather than by subclassing Form or ModelForm.
I'll make a complete writeup about it ala Diderot then haha
--
You received this message because you a
I don't think this is such a large feature that it requires a DEP but feel
free to write more about the problem and possible solution on this thread
to see if there's consensus about how to solve it.
On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 10:11:25 AM UTC-5, is_null wrote:
>
> There is a history of pr
There is a history of problems related to the coupling between forms and
models. For example, when a user suggested to pass a field instance to the
model field to make it default [0], or when I suggested to improve
formfield [1]: it was rejected because it would increase the coupling
between forms
Hi, it seems like you keep starting new threads about the same topic
without mentioning the previous threads and summarizing those discussions.
For example, you should layout the problem in more detail and explain what
"pretty much everybody would like to see a fix appear" means. I'm not sure
w
Hi all,
Currently, the model fields define which form fields should be used for
them by default. That's why we have to specify form stuff such as "blank"
when declaring our model fields, and pretty much everybody would like to
see a fix appear.
Would it be possible to add a new option for users t
