* 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 -