On 3/6/12 11:48 AM, Ed Leafe wrote: > On Mar 6, 2012, at 1:27 PM, Paul McNett wrote: > >> The examples you cite do not, in and of themselves, suggest making a >> subclass in >> Dabo, although they sure did in VFP. > > While it's certainly easier to do in Dabo, I tend to be lazy. If I have > to add dozens of controls with the same changes across many forms, I'd rather > define the subclass once and then use that in all my forms.
True, I do that as well. The point being, in Python/Dabo it is so much easier to refactor your class structure after the fact that you may as well do the simplest thing that will work at the time, rather than doing all the thinking ahead that was commonplace in VFP development. So when crafting a form, start out using the Dabo base classes. Then if you find yourself setting the same properties over and over again, you have a candidate for a small or large refactor. I'm constantly refactoring stuff in my codebase because, like Ed, I'm lazy when I'm heads-down developing something for the first time getting it to work. But later on, maybe months or even years later, when I'm revisiting to add something anyway, I'll spend 15 minutes reading the code and refactoring the obvious things. >> hs.append(dabo.ui.dTextBox(self, DataField="name", **dataCtrlProps)) > > I prefer the properties parameter rather than the ** form: > > hs.append(dabo.ui.dTextBox(self, DataField="name", properties=dataCtrlProps)) > > They both work the same, but that's what that parameter was created for. I prefer the ** way because it is more Pythonic, shorter to write, and easier to immediately understand. Paul _______________________________________________ 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/[email protected]
