On Fri, 2006-04-28 at 13:52 +, Jason Davies wrote:
>
> Malcolm Tredinnick wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-04-27 at 09:19 -0700, Jason Davies wrote:
[...]
> > > How about passing an optional name_prefix parameter to these
> > > validators, which would allow them to look up things like
> > > all_data[n
Malcolm Tredinnick wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-04-27 at 09:19 -0700, Jason Davies wrote:
> >
> > > A solution that fits all needs would be to create an extra parameter for
> > > these validators (the ones that take field names) that indicates that
> > > only fields for this class should be considered (
On Thu, 2006-04-27 at 09:19 -0700, Jason Davies wrote:
>
> > A solution that fits all needs would be to create an extra parameter for
> > these validators (the ones that take field names) that indicates that
> > only fields for this class should be considered (e.g. only things that
> > start with
> A solution that fits all needs would be to create an extra parameter for
> these validators (the ones that take field names) that indicates that
> only fields for this class should be considered (e.g. only things that
> start with model.__name__, in effect) and the dotted bits
> ("model.positio
All,
I was doing a slightly chaotic wander through the open tickets this
evening and came across http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/1690 --
discussing validators and fields with edit_inline set.
Initially I thought that the reporter had a good point and now I'm not
so sure that the "right" ans
