One disadvantage I see with the cast notation is that it's a bit jarring in:
as the adapter is applied to a/b/c. The order just doesn't seem quite right.
That is indeed jarring, especially since c isn't an object, it's just a name, and a/b/c is the object in question. This would look somewhat better with the current : mechanism, like a/b/c:adapter/d
My concern with this use of : was that it looked like it should be parsed like (a/b/c):(adapter/d), as opposed to ((a/b/c):adapter)/d -- maybe using something other than : wouldn't imply this grouping. Or maybe if I got used to it the grouping would seem more natural. I guess my intuition is that / binds more closely than : (even if there isn't any real precedence at all in TAL expressions).
-- Ian Bicking / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / http://blog.ianbicking.org
Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce