I think the principle of least surprise applies here. It would be very easy just to implement __call__ as a decorator, but by the same token, the signal needs to be used from both ends, and the addition of a __call__ method may confuse some people. As with most problems in programming, we just end up discussing the name :) IMHO, I think the removal of ambiguity is worth the extra 8 characters. If we make a decision (by informal vote), then I'll just go ahead and implement it, and then we just need someone to commit to SVN.
Regards, Zack On Sep 11, 10:44 pm, Ludvig Ericson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sep 11, 2008, at 21:19, Justin Fagnani wrote: > > > I just got a chance to look at this, and I like it, but have one > > suggestion. From a usage standpoint, wouldn't it be simpler to have > > the decorator just be the signal name, like @pre_save? I can't see any > > situation where you'd use a decorator for anything but connecting, so > > the ".connect" part just seems unnecessary. > > I just sat using the dispatcher from Django in a project of mine, and > was stunned at > __call__ not being *send*. So no, no __call__ decorator. > > -- Ludvig --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
