On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Ian Ward <[email protected]> wrote: > It might be reasonable to maintain TreeWalker backwards compatibility > by checking if a TreeNode is passed to the TreeWalker. Would it be > terrible to rename the current class to LegacyTreeWalker and have one > of those returned from TreeWalker.__new__ in the "I was passed a > TreeNode" case? Seems like a nicer idea than mixing the old and new > code together in the same class.
I take this back. Let's just call the new thing BaseTreeWalker instead. _______________________________________________ Urwid mailing list [email protected] http://lists.excess.org/mailman/listinfo/urwid
