I'm not sure it was such a "bad idea." It was a first pass and works well for a large number of cases. It's unrealistic to expect perfection from the get-go (or ever, really), and for all you or I know, the current implementation *is* perfect, for some value of perfect, for some users.
Regardless, I'm glad we can all chime in and improve the software as a community, whether with suggestions, patches, or shining light into dark corners. There's no doubt that Pylons and friends aren't perfect, but they're sure a hell of a lot better on the whole than anything I would have written on my own (and just imagine implementing *all* that functionality on your own). On Jan 5, 7:49 pm, Tycon <[email protected]> wrote: > Also lets not forget that keyword args can't represent a multi-dict > which is allowed for the request parameters. That's why it was a bad > idea from the start to use keyword args for the params. > > On Jan 5, 5:57 pm, "Mark Ramm" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > So what about having a 'params' argument but keeping the current > > > behavior if 'params' is not set. That would allow backward > > > compatibility. > > > > Then if 'params' is set and another argument doesn't correspond to any > > > path variable, I guess you'd raise an error. > > > Well, what we did in tg2 was merge the values from the params dict (if it's > > present) into the kwargs that was passed into url and redirect. This > > allows you to either passin thing as kwargs, or pass the params dict, or, if > > you're slightly crazy do both ;) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pylons-discuss" 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/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
