On Jan 12, 2012, at 8:18 AM, David wrote:
> Jonathan,
>
> I just looked at the helper.
>
> I see what your saying.
>
> I had thought it uses the __str__ or __repr__ to output the URL.
>
> I do think it would have been a useful thing to do so I am going to do as you
> suggested before.
One thing that's a little tricky is the way that URL accesses request
implicitly via current.request. That could be an issue if there's a relevant
change to request between the time that you create your object and the time you
call URL() from the object. I don't think that should be an issue, because
there's no reason for the relevant aspects of request to change, but it could
be avoided entirely by creating a fake request object holding only the
attributes that URL cares about.
Also, be sure to copy the mutable arguments (don't just store links to them).
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> On 1/12/12 11:08 AM, Jonathan Lundell wrote:
>> On Jan 12, 2012, at 8:05 AM, David wrote:
>>
>>> I dont see how adding access functions would cause an entire re-write;
>>>
>>> Seems like we would just need to add "get" functions to the class;
>>>
>>> I think the way it works now is great; but it should also offer the ability
>>> to check app, func, contoller, scheme, and so on.
>>>
>>> Clearly the helper knows about all this stuff and that how it is able to
>>> construct the final url string
>> There is no URL class; it's a bare function that returns a string.
>>
>>>
>>> On 1/12/12 10:59 AM, Jonathan Lundell wrote:
>>>> On Jan 12, 2012, at 7:11 AM, David wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I think it would be a worthwhile feature to be able to get information
>>>>> from a URL helper object.
>>>>>
>>>>> For example,
>>>>>
>>>>> If we create a tuple of URL objects, and we want to loop through them, we
>>>>> may want to be able to extract things like vars and args that were set
>>>>> when the object was created.
>>>>>
>>>>> ie:
>>>>>
>>>>> urls =
>>>>> (URL('default','action',args=['arg1','arg2']),URL('default','action',args=['arg1','arg2']))
>>>>>
>>>>> now I want to do something like
>>>>>
>>>>> for url in urls:
>>>>> print url.function
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This obviuosly does not work.
>>>> It's an interesting idea, but URL just returns a string, and aside from
>>>> being a fairly big rewrite, it's likely that it would break existing code
>>>> that relies on it being a string.
>>>>
>>>> You could create your own object that takes the same arguments as URL and
>>>> stores them as attributes, and whose __str__ and __repr__ functions are
>>>> the actual call to URL().
>>
>
