On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 9:03 AM, Ville M. Vainio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Edward K. Ream <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I'm not proposing this in a vacuum. The qt plugin would have >> benefitted significantly from a formal definition of what is expected >> of wrapper classes. At present, my implementation approach is to wait >> for AttributeErrors. That isn't good enough. > > You can do > > class ITree: > > def redraw(self): > raise NotImplemented > pass > def clear(self): > raise NotImplemented > > etc. > > And when staring a new subclass, copy-paste the class definition as > your template. > > It's a documentation issue, mostly.IIRC the zope people were > regretting their overuse of interfaces.
I have not been aware of that regret, other than maybe a point in evolution prior to the current level of understanding. My impression is that those that understand the Zope Component Architecture are finding it very worthwhile. It certainly is hard to evaluate though, lots of paths to take, sad to choose a dead end. Interfaces look better on > paper, but in practice they are not all that handy. Apart from > statically typed languages like C++, where they are mandatory layer of > abstraction for many problems. > > -- > Ville M. Vainio > http://tinyurl.com/vainio > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
