[wingide-users] 4.0.1-1 - Django beheavior

Fabio Fornaro fabio.fornaro at gmail.com
Mon Apr 4 05:49:18 MDT 2011


Hi Harald,
I see your point. Fact is I am unsure whether it's just a bug or a choice
by-design: so if it's something like a something to fix within a major/minor
release or something pertinent to some "custom evolution" ( money $$ for
support) but not considered as a 'bug', respectively.
We'll see ... :-)

Thanks for your prompt feedback.
Best Regards,
Fabio

On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Harald Thingelstad
<harald at thingelstad.org>wrote:

> On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 09:20:57 +0200
> Fabio Fornaro <fabio.fornaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Harald,
> > I'm also quite new to the language, and WingIDE itself for that
> > matter and some assertions I make could be wrong. Yes, WingIDE does
> > static analysis, so I'm aware of the fact that dynamic classes and
> > such specific constructs may be not found by the code analysis
> > subsystem. But I think this is not my case because the *
> > django.db.models.fields.CharField* extends *django.db.fields.Field*
> > class that specifies "max_length" *statically *in its *__init__*
> > method:
> >
> > class Field(object):
> >     """Base class for all field types"""
> >
> > {omissis}
> >
> >     def __init__(self, verbose_name=None, name=None,
> > primary_key=False, *max_length*=None, unique=False, blank=False,
> > null=False, db_index=False, rel=None, default=NOT_PROVIDED,
> > editable=True, serialize=True, unique_for_date=None,
> > unique_for_month=None, unique_for_year=None, choices=None,
> > help_text='', db_column=None,
> >             db_tablespace=None, auto_created=False, validators=[],
> >             error_messages=None):
> >
> > {omissis}
> >
> > JetBrains PyCharm, just to mention another IDE for Python that I was
> > also evaluating these days, behaviors differently and *correctly
> > *displays in its code-completion all the parameters (inherited from
> > the Field class) for the CharField class.
> >
> > Far away to start a "this IDE works better than this other one" or
> > pointless holy wars because this is not the scope of this mail (I
> > currently hold a license for WingIDE, so who cares about that ? :-),
> > but I'm only pointing out to the fact that why a Java-based IDE for
> > Python should have something that "*apparently works smarter"  *(from
> > my limited perspective)* *than a 1st class Python-based IDE like
> > WingIDE  ? Maybe someone could argue that it just works differently
> > and not smarter or better: it depends on one's specific expectations
> > I guess.
> >
> > But, at the end of the day, my question is : is there something wrong
> > with the static analysis concerning django classes analysis (for my
> > case) or it's just the way it works and everything is ok ?
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Fabio
>
> Frankly, I'm as blank as you are. Not calling myself an expert is one
> of the best things I can do these days, I'm afraid. I like to answer
> good (well-studied) questions like this one, if easy enough, but I
> get stuck quite often. Oh yes.
>
> As others say, one of the best features of wingide is developers
> listening to its users and working towards what they seem to want.
> If it's a real problem, perhaps write a good summary on the list again?
>
> But I guess they also want money out of their time and if I had the
> money, a support license would be high on my list for shaking out
> problems like this. If it's important enough for you, that is of course.
> They fix bugs for free, but support licenses do give a certain
> priority.
>
> And, if it wasn't for trying to learn the GTK gui right now, instead
> of django, I'd use more time digging it up.
>
> Regards,
> Harald
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/wingide-users/attachments/20110404/ea9b7a6b/attachment.html


More information about the wingide-users mailing list