Chris Withers wrote:
> Michel Pelletier wrote:
> > Python Methods are a perfect example of an object that is useful to us
> > at the top for advanced things, like methods of a animal base class we
> > use in our complex Zoo application, but they are also just as useful to
> > those at the bottom, as a simple little script written in python that
> > feeds the hippos.  Or unobfusicates their DTML.  Or iterates over a
> > database query.  It's useful and saves the time of these novice Zope
> > users if these methods can be flexible and reusable in different
> > contexts.  To me, this is the heart of the container vs. context binding
> > argument.  We at the top ususaly want the container because we're
> > engineering methods on classes.  Those at the bottom usually want
> > context for entirely different reasons.  Evan has done a great job
> > making an object that satisfies the entire spectrum, but in the process
> > has come up with something that is not entirely unlike a method in
> > python.
> ...this clears things up a lot. So, a python x can be bound to
> containment _or_ context depending on how it's setup, right?

Sorta.  There is a bindings tab on PythonMethods where you assign names
to various variables that show up in your namespace.  'self' is the
container.  'context' is the context.  So:


will allways call the container whereas:


will call the method on the currently bound object.

> I say leave it to the vote, although I liked that complex voting
> algorithm thing someone posted, it sounds like it'd leave more people
> happier.

Unfortunately, complex also means "too hard for me to think too hard
about".  Any volunteers?


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

Reply via email to