Re: is_valid() name change?

2008-04-25 Thread Malcolm Tredinnick
On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 12:28 +0200, Thomas Guettler wrote: > Malcolm Tredinnick schrieb: > > On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 09:37 +0200, Thomas Guettler wrote: > > [...] > > > > > >> I wrote > >> a ticket some time ago. If you care, please leave > >> a comment: > >> > >> http://code.djangoproject.com/t

Re: is_valid() name change?

2008-04-25 Thread Kenneth Gonsalves
On 25-Apr-08, at 3:58 PM, Thomas Guettler wrote: >> ticket. It's always taken into account that there is often more >> than one >> person wishing for any particular feature or bug fix. >> >> > How can you know how many people have this problem, if nobody says > "me too", > or "patch works fo

Re: is_valid() name change?

2008-04-25 Thread Thomas Guettler
Malcolm Tredinnick schrieb: > On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 09:37 +0200, Thomas Guettler wrote: > [...] > > >> I wrote >> a ticket some time ago. If you care, please leave >> a comment: >> >> http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/6675 >> > > I don't want to sound mean, but please don't. The utilit

Re: is_valid() name change?

2008-04-25 Thread Malcolm Tredinnick
On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 09:37 +0200, Thomas Guettler wrote: [...] > I wrote > a ticket some time ago. If you care, please leave > a comment: > > http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/6675 I don't want to sound mean, but please don't. The utility of tickets isn't evaluated by the number of "me to

Re: is_valid() name change?

2008-04-25 Thread Thomas Guettler
dimrub schrieb: > I don't think having a function with such a profound side effect (such > as making clean_data available) is a good idea. Very counter- > intuitive, IMHO. Why not split it into two: > > I don't think this side effect is bad. But I think it is black magic, that cleaned_data is s

Re: is_valid() name change?

2008-04-24 Thread Malcolm Tredinnick
On Thu, 2008-04-24 at 03:31 -0700, dimrub wrote: > I don't think having a function with such a profound side effect (such > as making clean_data available) is a good idea. Very counter- > intuitive, IMHO. It's just a name. Changing it now would impact a lot of existing code (and, as I explain be

is_valid() name change?

2008-04-24 Thread dimrub
I don't think having a function with such a profound side effect (such as making clean_data available) is a good idea. Very counter- intuitive, IMHO. Why not split it into two: - validate() - that performs the validation and makes clean_data available - is_valid() - that calls the above validate(