On Jun 19, 2007, at 12:55 PM, Nate Lowrie wrote:
> I am with Paul on this. I would prefer an error. In the code you
> described below might not need an error, but the runtime logic the
> developer wants is wrong anyway. As a developer, I want the error
> thrown so I don't have to track down the obscure behavior from a
> runtime error.
>
> Maybe the solution is to add a catch errors property/attribute to
> either dabo or dApp that will catch or not catch errors. That way
> people can develop like they prefer.
Do you mean just for this particular example, or for all cases? IOW,
if any code attempts to set a property to a value it already is set
to, that should throw an error? That was my point in illustrating
that repetitive calls to unlockDisplay() are conceptually no
different than setting a DisplayLocked property to False when it
already was False. The developer should *know* that it is already
False, so any code that tries to set it to the same value *must* be a
bug. The developer should be smart enough to write:
if self.DisplayLocked:
self.DisplayLocked = False
to avoid any problems, right?
-- Ed Leafe
-- http://leafe.com
-- http://dabodev.com
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/dabo-users
Searchable Archives: http://leafe.com/archives/search/dabo-users
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/dabo-users/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
