On Nov 23, 2007 3:28 PM, James Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 11/23/07, Wolfram Kriesing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > looks cleaner in my eyes. opinions please! > > In my opinion, you're asking for a lot of custom behavior from a > default field type, and the fact that you have to do some custom > coding to support that custom behavior is not a bug ;) >
I wouldn't call it a bug either but adding flexibility, which makes the newforms cleaning+validation just easier to grasp. Currently clean() does validation too, which I didn't expect it to from the beginning, simply because it's name doens't suggests it. Is the case I mentioned so very special? I think that forms are often enough that complex that one field's value depends on another fields value. What is the main reason for not making all the cleaned_data available in the clean_<field>() method? (Doing that would be the quickest solution without breaking BC and adding a hell lot more flexibility) Wolfram > > -- > "Bureaucrat Conrad, you are technically correct -- the best kind of correct." > > > > > -- cu Wolfram --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
