Gary Poster wrote:
> = Why not tuple multi-adaptation in the __call__? =
> I'm somewhat surprised that some who have been loudest about not
> breaking backwards compatibility are OK with breaking this, given the
> two reports from the very small sample we have here of users.
Do you really think introducing tuple adaptation on __call__ is risky?
I don't like having two ways to look up an adapter on the interface:
> = But Gary, I thought you didn't like ``adapt``? =
> No, I don't. I think it is a hindrance to understanding, and I would
> prefer ``instance``, for example (or maybe ``create``?). That said,
> people disagree with me. Going along with ``adapt`` but getting this
> new syntax gets me a lot of improvements from my perspective. I
> think people on the Launchpad team would be happy with this. I would
> explain ``adapt`` as "look, it's a factory," but, oh well. Progress
> usually means compromise.
I agree, because I think an API like "instance()" suggest a unification
of adapter and utility lookup. :)
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -