El 9 Sep 2008, a las 20:37 , Dieter Maurer escribió:
> Chris Withers wrote at 2008-9-8 18:34 +0100:
>> ...
>>> There's the backward-compatibility issue, which is a showstopper.
>>> There's plenty of code that does this:
>>>    adapter = package.interfaces.IFoo(object, None)
>>> Changing the signature as you describe would break all code that  
>>> does this.
>> How about a new major revision of zope.interface then?
> I fear that would be a bit drastic -- for a mostly cosmetic change.

I agree.

> But interfaces might grow an additional method, e.g. "adapt",
> which could get the new signature.
> The syntax would be a bit more cumbersome -- but on the other
> hand, it would be more explicit :-)

I don't think it would be too cumbersome. While IMHO elegant, the  
current syntax of calling an interface to adapt isn't actually self- 
explanatory. I've frequently observed people tripping over this,  
specially when you have an IFoo interface and a Foo class -- which is  
quite common --, then IFoo(obj) and Foo(obj) differ only by one  
character. With your suggestion, it would be IFoo.adapt(obj) vs.  
Foo(obj), making the difference quite obvious.

So overall I'm +1

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

Reply via email to