Why not provide a model field per measure type?

[carljm]

It seems that the design of django-measurement is to provide a single model field, MeasurementField, which is used for all measure types (distance, weight, volume, etc). This requires the MeasurementField to add a third database column to the model's table (in addition to unit and value) to store the name of the measure type.

I suppose this flexibility (to store a different measure type in the same measurement field in different rows) could be useful in some unusual cases, but it seems to me that in most common use cases this flexibility is actually a negative, as I'd prefer to ensure that, for instance, only Distance can be stored in a height field, and in these common cases the additional database column is useless dead weight.

Would you accept a pull request to support measure-specific model fields (e.g. WeightField, DistanceField, VolumeField, etc), which would require only two database columns instead of three?

[codingjoe]

Hi @carljm ,
this is in fact an issue. I will release version 2 now, which will remove this odd behavior. You'd be able to add more specific fields than.

[codingjoe]

I just merged version 2 in 6e670a4
Feel free to add a PR for fields.