> > Couple of things (including questions). > > 1. attributes defined in the Field() spec are lazy already, right? >
I guess not so much "lazy", but for the most part all that happens is they get added as attributes to the Field's self. There is a little logic in the constructor, though. I suppose we don't really need to make them much more lazy, but then I'm wondering about the use case for on_define. > In the above example, the attributes could just as well be defined there; > my intent was for attributes that required more logic, where attributes are > being set conditionally and it's clumsy to construct different Field() > calls to do it. > OK, sounds reasonable. Do you have an example? Anthony --
