On 10/06/12 21:54, Anssi Kääriäinen wrote:
> I agree the needed_fields.py idea was bad. One part of the idea was
> that you would get immediately broken migrations if you remove a
> field. Do all the migrations break if you have a broken field
> reference, or only when you actually use a migration
On 11 kesä, 11:49, Andrew Godwin wrote:
> On 10/06/12 21:54, Anssi K ri inen wrote:
>
> > I agree the needed_fields.py idea was bad. One part of the idea was
> > that you would get immediately broken migrations if you remove a
> > field. Do all the migrations break if you have a broken field
> > r
Hi!
This week I managed to write deserialization functions and tests.
*Issues with deserialization*
Working on deserialization give me a lot thoughts about previous
concepts. I rewrite Field class so now Field can't be nested. Field can
only have subfields if subfields are attributes:
class C
Hi all,
We've switched internally from json to simplejson. Our 1.5 release notes
say:
You can safely change any use of django.utils.simplejson to json
I just found a very big difference between json and simplejson
>>> simplejson.loads('{"x":"y"}')
{'x': 'y'}
>>> json.loads('{"x":"y"}')
{u'x':
I've just opened signup for our 2nd sprint - Saturday, June 16th, from
10a to 6p:
http://sfdjangosprint2.eventbrite.com/
Please sign up if you plan to attend -- it's free of course.
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Jeremy Dunck wrote:
> My company, Votizen, now has an office in San Francisco,
On 11/06/12 10:27, Anssi Kääriäinen wrote:
> All of the above sounds good - my main worry was that if you subclass
> a field, then it will not get a rule match as the module path prefix
> will be different than the parent field's. I don't know if this is an
> issue even in South... But if the rule
The other thing this breaks is using **kwargs with something loaded from
JSON.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/django-developers/-/ynPxXsJZUB8J.
To p
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 5:51 PM, Luke Plant wrote:
>
> i.e. simplejson returns bytestrings if the string is ASCII (it returns
> unicode objects otherwise), while json returns unicode objects always.
>
This seemed strange to me because the standard library json shipping
with python 2.7.3 is in fac
