I thought it was your suggestion? :) Anyway, I agree it might be cleaner with e.g. a 'match' kw (that can take a string *or* precompiled regexp I suppose)..
And skip the callable-tests for validate (if it's not None, it should be called). Not the least since we have no "callable" in Python 3.. Any votes on if I should rework it like this? Best regards, Niklas On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 3:54 AM, Jeff Forcier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 6:11 PM, Niklas Lindström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> == 5. Prompt, repeat and validate == > >> == 6. Prompt, validate with regexp == > > Thumbs up here also. Not sure if having a 'polymorphic' validate > argument is the cleanest approach (versus making it two, separate > arguments or something), but that's pretty picky of me :) > > -Jeff > _______________________________________________ Fab-user mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fab-user
