From: Chris Withers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Ah, okay... so really, prettymuch all Zope objects should be wrapped
> with only one or two exceptions, most of which aren't actually objects
> as such but simple data types?


> > Also, there is a
> > very limited range of "natural" ways to construct the wrappers.  Once
> > contructed, of course, we can fool with them in arbitrary ways.
> So I see, does this reduce efficiency at all?

Sure, but the question is, does it reduce efficiency *unacceptably*, and I
can't answer that.

> > container.  The simplification is the rule (A o B) o (B o C) => A o (B o
> I don't see how this simplification actually makes a difference...

In the next step, if we ask for a D and it's found in B, we get:

(A o (B o C)).D => (B o C).D o (A o (B o C)) => ((D o B) o (B o C)) o (A o
(B o C)) => (D o (B o C)) o (A o (B o C))

instead of

((A o B) o (B o C)).D => (A o B).D o ((A o B) o (B o C)) => ((D o B) o (A o
B)) o ((A o B) o (B o C))

The search order with simplification is D, B, C, A (containment first),
while without it's D, B, A, C (just plain weird).


Evan @ digicool & 4-am

Zope-Dev maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - )

Reply via email to