On Sun, 2009-03-15 at 12:44 -0700, Dan Watson wrote: > On Mar 15, 1:12 pm, "Gary Wilson Jr." <gary.wil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > What do you think? > > Wouldn't this be a backwards-incompatible change at this point? It > would clash with any model fields named "update".
No, because of a technicality. We considered this when writing the API stability document, as Alex pointed out. However, I also consider that (Dan's logic) an argument not add something like this unless it's really, really adding otherwise missing functionality. Just because we can, doesn't mean we should exploit the possibility to add to the namespace. That was also one of my reasons, if people search back through the archives, for why save() takes force_update and force_insert parameters, instead of adding two extra methods. If people want to add update() methods to their own models (perhaps via a new base class they inherit from), they can do that already, as they're in control of their own names. But removing a common name from the list of available ones if a two sided coin (or an eight sided die or many splendoured thing, not sure of the right metaphore here). Kind of disappointed that none of the other "commit at will" people have chimed in on this one (Adrian? Jacob? Russell? Bueller?...) I suspect I'm going to lose, but I'd genuinely like to know that there's something more than apathy behind the approval to add this. Regards, Malcolm --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
