Em Sexta 05 Maio 2006 12:14, Michele Cella escreveu:
> solution 2) more correct semantically and probably easier to handle
> since I can check for the presence of a dict for backward
> compatibility.
>
> options={'Dynamic Languages': (1, "Python"), (2, "Java")
> 'Others': (3, "Java"), (4, "C++")}
>
> I vote for option 2).
Me too.
> But I still need to think about the implementation details also to be
> sure that this thing is backward compatible... I don't have much time
> ATM.
In fact, not only backwards compatible but not making optiongroup required at
all. The majority of cases won't require it.
--
Jorge Godoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"TurboGears" 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/turbogears
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
