Per a discussion in django-users[1], I'm requesting that getters and
setters be added to fields in Django models, for the same basic reasons
that "property" is a useful keyword in Python.
Ticket 3418[2] contains a proposed patch. The code is small, but I post
it here because the potential impact
On 12/15/06 7:14 PM, jerf wrote:
> Per a discussion in django-users[1], I'm requesting that getters and
> setters be added to fields in Django models, for the same basic reasons
> that "property" is a useful keyword in Python.
>
> Ticket 3418[2] contains a proposed patch. The code is small, but I
Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> The patch looks pretty good to me; it applies cleanly and all the unit tests
> pass (you get major props for including 'em on the first pass :).
>
> However, I do have one quibble: the addition of ``self._django_initializing``
> inside ``Model.__init__`` has a pretty n
On 12/15/06, Jacob Kaplan-Moss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also, a few lines of documentation need to be added (to docs/model-api.txt)
> before this can be checked in. If you can remove the ``_django_initializing``
> flag (or at least explain why you need it) and write a few lines of docs, I'll
Adrian Holovaty wrote:
> Before checking in this new functionality, I'd be very interested in
> seeing whether it would be possible to allow for "normal" property
> usage on models, rather than inventing a new way of doing it.
>
> Seems like it would be tricky to figure it out, but that shouldn't
I got burned this weekend with authentication users, setting passwords
on them directly during construction. (I knew I had to call set_password
to change the password but I had gotten the idea I could pass 'password'
into the constructor and get it handled correctly.)
If my getters/setters pat
