Re: Design Query: How to handle transition to "FloatField version 2"

2007-05-14 Thread Ivan Sagalaev
Malcolm Tredinnick wrote: > (3) Find another name for the new, genuine FloatField. Problem > is, "FloatField" is a really good name. All other names I can > think of are longer or non-Pythonic (e.g. NumericField only > makes sense if you think "SQL", not "Python").

Re: Design Query: How to handle transition to "FloatField version 2"

2007-05-14 Thread Malcolm Tredinnick
On Mon, 2007-05-14 at 09:49 +, simonbun wrote: > What if we would make the 'decimal_places' argument illegal for the > new FloatField? That exception would make the change impossible to > miss. Hope I'm not missing anything obvious with this idea, it just > popped into my head. Doh! Yes... th

Re: Design Query: How to handle transition to "FloatField version 2"

2007-05-14 Thread simonbun
What if we would make the 'decimal_places' argument illegal for the new FloatField? That exception would make the change impossible to miss. Hope I'm not missing anything obvious with this idea, it just popped into my head. On May 14, 11:25 am, Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I ha

Design Query: How to handle transition to "FloatField version 2"

2007-05-14 Thread Malcolm Tredinnick
I had a patch all ready to commit, doing the long-awaited FloatField -> DecimalField change and putting in a "real" FloatField. Then I realised I was about to do something silly. Renaming FloatField to DecimalField is simple and obvious. The backwards-incompatible change means people have to do a