data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/8ba16/8ba16eff78d56c41f50923ed0757defedc0232ad" alt=""
It sounds like introducing that kind of field() function would require users to write instead: class Question(Model): question_text = field(CharField(max_length=200))
I was envisioning this instead:
```python class Question(Model): question_text = char_field(max_length=200) ```
Hmm. That pattern would imply a set of parallel *_field() functions for all of Django's (current and future, 1st party and 3rd party) *Field classes. I think I like my proposal generic field() function better, even if it differs significantly in implementation from the similarly-named dataclasses.field(), because it only necessitates defining a *single* new generic function and a *single* new pattern that will work everywhere for all *Field() classes (which I don't expect to go away).
For my own reference, I expect a field() method would be implemented as something like: ... def field(field: Field[T]) -> T: return typing.cast(T, field)
Cheers, David