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: __call__() and adapt() > = 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. :) Regards, Martijn _______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
