On Monday, August 29, 2005 4:33 PM, Gary Poster wrote: >> Couldn't 'initial_getter' just be implemented using a property >> version of 'initial'? > > Yes, it could. The only downside is that it wouldn't be > usable as an > initialization argument. I don't feel very strongly about it > one way > or the other. It sounds like Jim is a definite -1 (as I thought he > might be :-) so I'm happy to drop it.
I think I agree with Jim, see my other post. >> Cool. I don't know if this is the same thing, but we have a widget >> that handles editing two related fields. One field is a boolean >> that, when False, renders the other field not-applicable. E.g. when >> the user unselects a checkbox, a list box becomes disabled. Our >> implementation is a bit of a hack, since the widget has to cheat >> and get access to additional fields. > > Huh, interesting. It sounds different. What is the typical use for > this sort of field? It's not a field -- it's a widget that cheats and updates multiple fields because the fields are closely related. Probably not worth worrying about at this point. >> I can probably free up some time to look at SimpleInputWidget. > > That would be great--you mean, during the same time as the > sprint, or > before, or after? If before or during, we should probably coordinate. If the API falls into a collaboration category, I can try to be available via IRC. I suspect it will be more efficient to just have a brainstorm during the sprint, put together a simple proposal and work up a prototype. The SingleInputWidget Jim's talking about will end up looking a lot like SimpleInputWidget. When is the sprint anyway? :-) -- Garrett _______________________________________________ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com