On Jul 30, 2007, at 4:58 PM, Jonathan LaCour wrote:
> > Michael Bayer wrote: > >> its a model taken from the way event loops usually work; any consumer >> along the event chain is allowed to say, "ive consumed the event" and >> stop further handlers from dealing with it. we can certainly change >> the names around into something less ridiculous. unfortuantely, >> changing it so that "no" return value, or None, does *not* short >> circuit the chain runs a slight risk that someone is actually using >> it that way. So we might need to change it such that if your >> before_insert returns None, an error is raised, and youre forced to >> return a specific value indicating the next activity...otherwise >> someone's upgrade might silently fail. > > Fair enough, I suppose. I think I can get over it, for the most part. > It might just be an issue of cognitive dissonance because of the > naming > convention or how its described in the documentation. i think a name change is probably in order at the very least. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sqlalchemy" 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/sqlalchemy?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
