On 04/20/2010 10:48 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Fred Drake<fdr...@gmail.com>  wrote:
I think the issue is with that it's not standard protocol the way we use it
- at least I can't find our use of __bases__ documented in Python's
documentation[1] about __bases__ and thus have a hard time saying we're
following standard protocols.

Our uses of __bases__ and __parent__ don't match Python,

We disagree wrt __bases__.

and there's a
general BDFL proclamation that underware are for Python
implementations (IIRC).

That proclamation changed over time. It was much weaker in the past.
It was strengthened with

"applications should not expect to define
additional names using this convention. The set of names of this class
defined by Python may be extended in future versions."

in Python 2.3.

In fact, Guido was aware of and didn't object to my use of __*__names.

  While we can argue that our use is
reasonable, the fact that there's reasonable dissent suggests
something different would have been a better choice.

The fact that there is dissent from a choice doesn't mean that it
is wrong.

I'm not saying that my use of __*__s was "right" in
any absolute sense. I get that there are differences of opinion.
To say that zope.testing "promotes" layers the wrong way, simply
because it used the name __bases__, which doesn't even go
against the BDFL's pronouncement on the use of __*__s is
misleading at best.

Something in this discussion thread is borked. I sense tension. I sense that the argument doesn't have direction and I don't feel invited to share my thoughts.

I'd like to figure out why that is because I want this to happen less often. (Right now this caused me to spend 30 minutes not writing a technical answer which makes me sad because I think in real life this issue could have been debated much more quickly and constructively.)

For now I'll go to bed, maybe looking at it tomorrow will help.

Christian Theune · c...@gocept.com
gocept gmbh & co. kg · forsterstraße 29 · 06112 halle (saale) · germany
http://gocept.com · tel +49 345 1229889 0 · fax +49 345 1229889 1
Zope and Plone consulting and development

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )

Reply via email to