Re: improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs
Wolfgang Schnerring <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.web.zope.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
* On Nov 25, 2009, at 11:17 AM, Thomas Lotze wrote: > > What about a simple and consistent API for all components including > > utilities, adapters and multiadapters: > > > > IFoo() > > IFoo(x) > > IFoo(x, y) I quite like the simplicity of this spelling, so I want to be sure *why* it must be ruled out. (...or does it, really?) I'm thinking that this... * Martijn Faassen <[email protected]> [2009-11-25 22:21]: > The last one won't work if we want to maintain backwards compatibility. > The second argument is the default. is a valid argument, while this... * Tres Seaver <[email protected]> [2009-11-25 13:34]: > You can't use an arbitrary number of positional arguments for the > contexts, because we need to support the named / default cases too. is not, as evidenced by... * Fabio Tranchitella <[email protected]> [2009-11-25 20:51]: > IFoo(x, y, default=None, name='something') or am I missing something here? So I'm thinking, there is no technical reason that prevents Thomas' spelling, and I'm wondering, do we really have to preserve backwards compatibility for this case? Wolfgang _______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - [email protected] https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )