Chris McDonough wrote:
> Chris McDonough wrote:
>>> Off the top of my head, another way to think of this *might* be to say
>>> that the 'dict access' is basically looking up a *named* utility
>>> providing a very generic marker interface, e.g.
>>> zope.component.interfaces.IUtility or even just
>>> zope.interface.Interface. That way reg['foo'] == getUtility(IUtility,
>>> name='foo'). Obviously, assignment would register in the same way.
>>> I'm not sure it's "better", though. :)
>> That would also be fine, and it would normalize things a bit, although the
>> implementation would be harder and it would result in slower lookups. But
>> it made folks feel better than inheriting from dict, I'd be +1 on it.
> Meh, I just remembered that I tried this. The current implementation
> that the "name" value be a literal string object (or at least something
> convertable to Unicode). I think we could relax this requirement; it really
> only needs to be hashable. I wouldn't want to deploy the API if the keys
> required to only be strings.
Should be easy to fix, I'm sure. Why would you want something other than
Author of `Professional Plone Development`, a book for developers who
want to work with Plone. See http://martinaspeli.net/plone-book
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -