Yeah I like the ModelForm class idea better, for sure. Are you coding
it or will I?
On Feb 13, 3:13 am, "RonnyPfannschmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> that wouldnt remove the strict distinction betwen form_for_model
> and form_for_instance (the only difference i see, is that one of them
> has
that wouldnt remove the strict distinction betwen form_for_model
and form_for_instance (the only difference i see, is that one of them
has a initial instance
and i really would like to have a base class, since i like to avoid
monkey-patching
using the function result as a base-class would be an
On 2/12/07, Scott Paul Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 07:45:52AM -0800, RonnyPfannschmidt wrote:
> >
> > The actual method of creating Model related forms is a set of
> > functions returning form classes
> >
> > thats nice to use, but not very nice to extend
> >
> >
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 07:45:52AM -0800, RonnyPfannschmidt wrote:
>
> The actual method of creating Model related forms is a set of
> functions returning form classes
>
> thats nice to use, but not very nice to extend
>
> Im proposing a Base class wich allows to pass models/instances to
> gener
The actual method of creating Model related forms is a set of
functions returning form classes
thats nice to use, but not very nice to extend
Im proposing a Base class wich allows to pass models/instances to
generate forms, or inherit to extend the forms
default usage would be ModelForm(model=
