I know this has come up over the last few years[1] and people are mixed on the action that should be taken. I would like to bring it up again as it has bitten me a few time lately.
I seems the biggest concern is backwards compatibility of the syntax. I feel that should not stop us from fixing something that is an annoying wart and also keeping the syntax in line with how other tags work. In this thread[2] Malcolm suggested introducing a new tag and depreciating the old one which could be done by bringing something like[3] into core. Im not huge on the idea of have 2 tags that do the same thing only with slightly different syntax, but if that is the cleanest upgrade I'm +1. I think this can still be done in a backwards compatible way[4], unless I'm missing something. I hope this doesn't turn into a shed planing session, thanks! [1] http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/7917 [2] http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers/browse_thread/thread/ac2b1ea4555c0a62/21cf9b1aed6d11e0?lnk=gst&q=url+tag+viewname#21cf9b1aed6d11e0 [3] http://github.com/ulope/django-reversetag [4] http://pastebin.com/FhZSFQdn -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-develop...@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.
