-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 12 Jan 2007, at 12:26, Charlie Clark wrote:
Am 12.01.2007 um 10:13 schrieb Jens Vagelpohl:
That's a matter of taste. I like explicit, so I prefer the
Explicit is better than implicit but I don't see what's wrong with
having an explicit list of fields through which to loop, as long as
the call is the same as this reduces typos and makes things easier
to manage. Of course, exposing all attributes by allowing __get__
to be the same as getattr can cause problems for objects that are
not simply based on dictionaries.
You don't need to tell me this, it's a matter of taste and if you
want to do something different in your code please do it :) If
you're arguing that the CMF should be changed in this regard than I
can't help thinking that this is a whole lot of discussion for a tiny
minute detail and there's a lot more important things that could need
help and fixing.
I was initially confused that the context was the same as the
instance of my content-type and didn't support this as I use this
idiom quite frequently to reduce my typos. Is this too much of an
edge case to warrant the extension in general (but I'm free to do
it myself) or perhaps an outdated methodology?
I'm not sure what this paragraph means.
It was quite late...
In PythonScripts I quite often use
context.get('objectname') rather than context.objectname for
anything programmatic. It seems to me that there is a case for
making certain attributes of content-types available via get so
that dispatching can be used where appropriate.
I have a feeling this is another case of personal preference that
really doesn't make any difference in real life, don't you think? See
If you have excess programming energy I'd love you to look at open
CMF collector issues and take on some of them, instead of debating
small details ;)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org
See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests