Jorge Godoy wrote: > > In fact, I would have agreed with you before -- I even think I stated that > here. But when I separated both, and thought about form reuse, I saw the > possibility of having the same form in two different places with different > "requiredness" (I'm inventing a word here, I believe...) requisites. One > example might be a user creation and user modification form. Both forms have > "user_name", "display_name", "password" and "password_confirmation", but the > passwords are required just for creating a new user while I might just want to > fix a typo in the user display name later, without touching his password at > all. > > It doesn't look like so incoherent now.
Yep, you're right! ;-) can we call it flexible and useful incoherency? :D > > > I'm seeing it everywhere (ok, where it belongs), anyway I'm relying on > > not_empty (that doesn't work right without my patched FE) but on a > > simulated validation. ;-) > > This might be the problem since I'm not using this patched version. :-) > D'oh! I should really sleep, anyway I've forgot the "not" before, you should see it and the above sentence should be: "anyway I'm *not* relying on not_empty" Ciao Michele (that is going to sleep for real now) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TurboGears Trunk" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears-trunk -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
