Aleksi Torhamo <alexerion+pythonb...@gmail.com> added the comment: "not the handle_close_event() replacements, stick with handle_close()". I'm guessing this has to do with "breaking the abstraction"?
I can't think of a situation where handle_close() is called, but close() should not be called. If indeed so, i feel it's weird to require the user remember to call close(), and it should IMHO be done automatically. (I feel like i'm bitten by this each and every time i replace the default handle_close().. :) If the naming of handle_close_event() is not appropriate (as it "sounds" like a layer 1 method), how about adding do_close(), and making other places call that? def do_close(self): self.close() self.handle_close() ---------- nosy: +alexer _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue909005> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com