On Saturday, August 30, 2014 12:58:18 PM UTC+2, Aymeric Augustin wrote: > > If it weren’t for backwards compatibility, we could recursively merge > dicts from user settings into defaults settings. For example > https://github.com/django/django/pull/3138 achieves that in > override_settings. >
And what would that give us? if I want override FOO['BAR'] where from would I override FOO with that merging behavior in place? Considering how many settings we’ve turned into dicts, I’m wondering if we > should accept the consequences and implement the merging behavior. We’d > have to make sure that setting a key to None is equivalent to not providing > it at all. We could take this opportunity to review default values for > settings, as we’ve already done in a few specific cases. > Wondering if None is a good value or if it rather should be some sentinel object. That said since it only affects dicts, I think one usually doesn't have a value in the dict if usage isn't wanted, so None might be a good sentinel anyways. Cheers, Florian -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/b116da00-d7fa-4591-b133-335a537f6673%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
