Hash: SHA1

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 existing method.

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 Is this too much of an edge case to warrant the extension in general (but I'm free to do it myself) or perhaps an outdated methodology?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 above.

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 ;)


Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)

Zope-CMF maillist  -  Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org

See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests

Reply via email to