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").
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
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
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