Brian Vaughn

I see. formFor wasn't really created with that use-case in mind, although a friend recently mentioned something similar and I think it would be a neat idea to try to...

Going to close this issue for now as it's not a feature currently on the roadmap for formFor (mostly because I just don't have enough spare time to do that...

That's an interesting compromise idea, @indrimuska. I'll re-open this issue for now if you're interested in exploring that route. :)

Hi @indrimuska, That's a pretty promising start! I like the direction. I'm not sure I understand your comment in the scope about "every single option" being necessary. Could you elaborate?

What if you got rid of the isolate scope and transclusion entirely? ``` javascript .directive('altField', ['FieldHelper', function (FieldHelper) { return { restrict: 'E', require: '^formFor', transclude: true, template: '', link:...

Hmm. That's fair, although I think it's probably pretty unlikely to occur. That being said we could address this by refactoring to use a more "private" naming convention (e.g. `$model.bindable`)....

Wow. I totally clicked "close and comment" without meaning to. Sorry.

I'm not sure I see what you're describing. I updated my original plunker ([see here](http://plnkr.co/edit/sZ0AJ3O2MifSF985SZip?p=preview)) to also log the form-data value on submit and it's got an updated value like...

Hah! Good point! I'm at a bit of a loss at the moment. Tried a couple of things in a local copy but without any luck.

Hi again @indrimuska :) Your approach seems reasonable. Would you like to create a PR for me to take a look at?