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  -
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - )

Reply via email to