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
>> 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
When is the sprint anyway? :-)
Zope3-dev mailing list