Re: ZCA proposal
Benji York <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.web.zope.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 5:27 AM, Shane Hathaway <[email protected]> wrote: > To me, "myobj.get(x)" reads as "myobj, please get x and give me the > result", so "IFoo.adapt(y)" reads as "IFoo, please adapt y and give me > the result". That statement makes perfect sense to me. Agreed. I also like "adapt" because it is a verb -- which I prefer method names to be. For the same reason I'm not real keen on the name "utility"... although I can't come up with anything better than "get_utility" at the moment. Too bad less-than is already defined for interfaces, otherwise we could do something crazy like IFoo<context> for single adapters and IFoo<a, b, c> for multiapdapters. I suppose we could do: IFoo<<context>> and IFoo<<a, b, c>> instead. Somehow I suspect that'll provoke a gag reflex in the most Pythonic among us as well as annoy those that want something "googlable" for the uninformed code reader. -- Benji York _______________________________________________ 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 )