Gary Poster <> schrieb:

> OK.  I'll give it a whirl sometime over the next couple of weeks, if  
> that's soon enough for you.


> FWIW, I'd be strongly tempted to release *without* the generation  
> code, and leave it up to users to switch as they desire.

Fine with me. I'm pretty confident of the other changes I've made,
BTW, and there's not exactly a lot of them either.

> 1) That's particularly pertinent for library bits like this because a  
> tree walker would have to walk over *all* attributes and __getitem__s  
> in order to find instances of things like a blist, which will  
> generally be hidden deep in application objects; or would have to use  
> an iteration protocol like the one that FileStorage provides.

Right. Looking closer at the utility function I've used so far for
walking the objects, I think it doesn't nearly cover all the places a
dict could hide.

> 2) Old instances (with lists, not blists) will still work fine with  
> the new code, and in fact should continue to work even with new apis  
> as long as the ordered dict apis use the list apis (like slices) to  
> manipulate the order.

They do.

> 3) How many people are really using the blist right now anyway in  
> production?

No idea...

> Generation code is hard to test in the abstract.

Do we actually have any best practices for that?

Viele Grüße,

Thomas Lotze ·
gocept gmbh & co. kg · forsterstraße 29 · 06112 halle (saale) · germany · tel +49 345 1229889 0 · fax +49 345 1229889 1
Zope and Plone consulting and development

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

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

Reply via email to