Re: [Zope] "Acquisition Algebra"; interaction of containment and acquisition is confusing

From: Fred Yankowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Now, does that bother anyone besides me? Since acquisition is intrinsic > and ubiquitous in Zope, shouldn't we be concerned that it is hard to > control or predict? Keep in mind that it is only the *order after containment* that has this problem. For in

Re: [Zope] "Acquisition Algebra"; interaction of containment and acquisition is confusing

Thank you for describing the transformation rules in detail. With those I can mechanically create the same acquisition expression that you get. Working some further examples with this knowledge [and how can I use this knowledge to make mo' money?], I find that given a containment tree like this:

Re: [Zope] "Acquisition Algebra"; interaction of containment and acquisition is confusing

From: Fred Yankowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > for the very last case, "a.b.c.x". I just can't follow why the > equivalent expression isn't > > x.__of__(a).__of__(c.__of__(b.__of__(a))) > > rather than the more complex answer given: > > x.__of__(a).__of__(b.__of__(a)).__of__(c.__of__(b.__of__(a))) Y

[Zope] "Acquisition Algebra"; interaction of containment and acquisition is confusing

Can anyone help me understand what's going on in the last example of the main "Acquisition" document, ? I think I understand how the various "complex expressions" relate to the equivalent expression in terms of the '__of__' operator