* ui_ux: => 0
* stage: Design decision needed => Accepted
Comment:
Discussion with Carl: this new syntax would be ambiguous with the current
syntax, however this is a good feature, and the current API is kind of
silly. This is accepted, provisional on creating a new, more sane and
consistent syntax, to be placed in the future module.
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/5865#comment:14>
Django <https://code.djangoproject.com/>
The Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.
* needs_docs: 0 => 1
* needs_tests: 0 => 1
* needs_better_patch: 0 => 1
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/5865#comment:15>
Comment (by Alexander Lazarević):
Is this still considered a desirable feature?
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/5865#comment:17>
Comment (by Mariusz Felisiak):
Replying to [comment:17 Alexander Lazarević]:
> Is this still considered a desirable feature?
Yes, IMO nothing has changed.
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/5865#comment:18>
* owner: munhitsu => Alexander Lazarević
* status: new => assigned
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/5865#comment:19>
Comment (by Alexander Lazarević):
I created a PR https://github.com/django/django/pull/17716
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/5865#comment:20>
* needs_better_patch: 1 => 0
* needs_tests: 1 => 0
* needs_docs: 1 => 0
Comment:
For the new PR I'm going to remove "Needs documentation", "Needs tests"
and "Patch needs improvement". Please set these flags again if required
(or I should have left them set in the first place).
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/5865#comment:21>
Comment (by Alexander Lazarević):
I just put something together at https://sandbox.e11bits.com/ to showcase
the feature more broadly. Maybe people can judge by that, if the feature
is desirable and help with the code review? It's just a quick hack, so
don't expect too much. The examples are more or less the ones found as
testcases in the PR. (crossposted to discord)
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/5865#comment:22>
Comment (by Natalia Bidart):
Replying to [comment:22 Alexander Lazarević]:
> I just put something together at https://sandbox.e11bits.com/ to
showcase the feature more broadly. Maybe people can judge by that, if the
feature is desirable and help with the code review? It's just a quick
hack, so don't expect too much. The examples are more or less the ones
found as testcases in the PR. (crossposted to discord)
Thank you Alexander for your work on this. In order to unify the
conversation in a single place, I will reply to the forum thread with my
view, hopefully we can agree on an implementation design there and then
come back to the ticket.
As a reference, [https://forum.djangoproject.com/t/cycle-template-tag-
should-accept-a-single-argument/27010 this is the forum post].
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/5865#comment:23>
Comment (by Alexander Lazarević):
After the discussion in https://forum.djangoproject.com/t/cycle-template-
tag-should-accept-a-single-argument/27010/3 I'm withdrawing the PR.
My implementation would have introduced an ambiguity that would have had
it made it harder for users to use the `cycle` tag.
In the discussion @carlton mentioned that it could be worth "... to
investigate [is] whether we could add * and ** list and dictionary
expansion to the DTL. cycle could benefit from list expansion.".
So I'm trying to come up with something in that direction instead.
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/5865#comment:24>
* has_patch: 1 => 0
Comment:
There is nothing to review, at least for now.
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/5865#comment:25>
* owner: Alexander Lazarević => (none)
* status: assigned => new
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/5865#comment:26>