Marty Alchin a écrit :
> On 11/7/07, David Larlet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately, what happens with my Form is exactly what I'd like to do:
>> create a generic form from a Form class which define fields (with
>> widgets, etc) and methods and which is initialized with the content
On 11/7/07, SmileyChris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually, I see no good reason why you shouldn't be able to use a Form
> as the SuperClass of your form_for_* form.
Yeah, I was trying avoid the issue of "should" of "shouldn't" and just
point out what was going on.
-Gul
On Nov 8, 4:30 am, "Marty Alchin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When you pass in a subclass of Form, it's already got its fields in
> the right place, but more importantly, it triggers that syntax
> checking again, where it looks for new fields. It basically copies
> fields from a parent class,
Marty Alchin a écrit :
>>> On 11/7/07, David Larlet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
Hi all,
I'd spent a long time finding that bug but I want to be sure before
submitting it on Trac. If you pass a form argument to form_for_instance
like that:
> > On 11/7/07, David Larlet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> I'd spent a long time finding that bug but I want to be sure before
> >> submitting it on Trac. If you pass a form argument to form_for_instance
> >> like that:
> >>
> >> forms.form_for_instance(foo, form=FooForm)
> >>
This should probably be asked on django-users, as it's more about how
to use form_for_instance() than any internal development. And yes,
that means I don't believe it's a bug, and I'll gladly explain more on
django-users so more people can hear it.
-Gul
On 11/7/07, David Larlet <[EMAIL
Hi all,
I'd spent a long time finding that bug but I want to be sure before
submitting it on Trac. If you pass a form argument to form_for_instance
like that:
forms.form_for_instance(foo, form=FooForm)
with an instance of foo which only contains a basic field (let's say a
CharField) and
