I wonder if the changes Shane suggested in MethodGeddon would make
Simplified Acquistion suffice for what Steve was asking about?

Also can you explain how from the example:
Two path acquisition: A contains B1 and C1, B1 contains B2, C1 contains

How (Natural Acquisition):
A.B1.B2.C1 == (((C1 o A) o (B1 o A)) o ((B2 o B1) o (B1 o A)))

equates to:
"Roughly speaking, search the objects in the reverse of the order they
were mentioned in, along the shortest physical path between each

and how it differs in effect from:

A.B1.B2.C1 == (((C1 o A) o (B1 o A)) o (B2 o (B1 o A)))

(which is what I think simplified Acquisition would return...)



PS: This might just be explaining how the (x o y) notation actually
tells you where the object's attribute comes from :S
(in the above example, how, in each case, the notation explains where C1
comes from...)

PPS: What's happening with the Zope-Dev Wiki? Is it being fazed out?

Zope-Dev maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )

Reply via email to