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)))
You can
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
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
Can anyone help me understand what's going on in the last example of
the main "Acquisition" document,
http://www.digicool.com/releases/ExtensionClass/Acquisition.html?
I think I understand how the various "complex expressions" relate to
the equivalent expression in terms of the '__of__' operator,
