rom an instance to a symbolic reference. The instance is probably a variable
anyway by declaration of the test model, which I suspect is slightly easier to
chase.
So I’d be slightly more in favour of the terse, tuple-based syntax.
J
--
James Aylett
I make: devfort.com, spacelog.org
Films: talktor
I'm +1 on this solution; it solves the problem in an efficient way without
becoming unreadable. I'd shy away from the variants unless/until there's a
definite need. kwargs are more explicit, which I think is helpful in
readability :)
J
On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 12:16:05 PM UTC+1, Aymer
Ticket: https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/23832
This is something that's been bugging me for a while, but it's tricky
to get a good compatibility story. Here I'll lay out what's going on
now including obstacles to change, where I think we should be and a
possible route for getting there.
# C
On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 5:48:09 PM UTC+1, Aymeric Augustin wrote:
> While pour point is technically valid as far as request.GET and
> request.POST are concerned, in practice they're so commonly used as a
> metonymy for HTTP GET and HTTP POST that it's worth having a strong stance
> on
