Re: Circular dependency hell.

On 04/20/2010 10:05 PM, Fred Drake wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Christian Theune<[email protected]>  wrote:
>> I don't know (or at least can't remember) all of the history of the
>> discussion about that, but I wouldn't argue about following standard
>> protocols.
>
> It *is* arguable that __name__ is a standard protocol.  It's also not
> clear that our using it as we do is really the same thing.  (And I
> don't think it's interesting to discuss whether we do the right thing
> or not.)
>
>> I think the issue is with that it's not standard protocol the way we use it
>> - at least I can't find our use of __bases__ documented in Python's
>> documentation[1] about __bases__ and thus have a hard time saying we're
>> following standard protocols.
>
> Our uses of __bases__ and __parent__ don't match Python, and there's a
> general BDFL proclamation that underware are for Python
> implementations (IIRC).  While we can argue that our use is
> reasonable, the fact that there's reasonable dissent suggests
> something different would have been a better choice.

I think the two of us agreeing, right?


-- 
Christian Theune · [email protected]
gocept gmbh & co. kg · forsterstraße 29 · 06112 halle (saale) · germany
http://gocept.com · tel +49 345 1229889 0 · fax +49 345 1229889 1
Zope and Plone consulting and development

_______________________________________________
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 )