* On Nov 25, 2009, at 11:17 AM, Thomas Lotze wrote:
> > What about a simple and consistent API for all components including
> > utilities, adapters and multiadapters:
> >
> > IFoo()
> > IFoo(x)
> > IFoo(x, y)

I quite like the simplicity of this spelling, so I want to be sure
*why* it must be ruled out. (...or does it, really?)

I'm thinking that this...

* Martijn Faassen <faas...@startifact.com> [2009-11-25 22:21]:
> The last one won't work if we want to maintain backwards compatibility. 
> The second argument is the default.

is a valid argument, while this...

* Tres Seaver <tsea...@palladion.com> [2009-11-25 13:34]:
> You can't use an arbitrary number of positional arguments for the
> contexts, because we need to support the named / default cases too.

is not, as evidenced by...

* Fabio Tranchitella <kob...@kobold.it> [2009-11-25 20:51]:
>     IFoo(x, y, default=None, name='something')

or am I missing something here?

So I'm thinking, there is no technical reason that prevents Thomas'
spelling, and I'm wondering, do we really have to preserve backwards
compatibility for this case?

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

Reply via email to