Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Thomas Lotze wrote:
>> Then let me suggest not changing the call signature of an interface at all
>> but only add one or a few new methods. Firstly, this will keep backwards
>> compatibility even with code that adapts a tuple, and secondly, it
>> allows us to implement a simple and consistent API anyway.
> That was my original proposal, right? (I only propose adding a 'name'
> argument to the IFoo() lookup if it isn't there already, otherwise it's
> all new methods).
I specifically wanted to suggest not adding that name argument but leaving
the existing call untouched. I think once we add a new method, we
shouldn't at the same time improve the existing one as that would IMO
suggest rather forcefully that there's more than one way to do the same
thing; just leaving it in there for compatibility is bad enough from the
point of view of a clean API.
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -