Andreas Reuleaux wrote:
On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 02:52:14PM +0200, Lennart Regebro wrote:
On 4/23/06, Andreas Reuleaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sorry, I wonder if you read my suggestion carefully. In particular
I suggested having a period where only the new (and ugly) statement
is allowed, and only after that to reintroduce the old statment
with a new meaning.
Yes, so you suggest that we deprecate a statement for a statement that
we intent to deprecate. And that just makes no sense.

The reason I was suggesting to introduce a new statement
(<browse2:page>, <browser:publish>, ...) with the intent to later
deprecate it, was the lack of good notation, at least something
that is as good as the original <browse:page>, that is after
all how this dicussion thread started.

If everyone is fine on this list that <browser:publish> is just as
good as <browser:page> then I can certainly live with that for a
longer time - Philipp expressed some concerns in this thread though

Yes, mostly because our nomenclature talks about "pages" all the time. Plus, "publish" is a verb. Most ZCML directives are nouns.

I was just suggesting a possible way to allow for a smooth
transition and in the long run to aim for the best notation
possible. - I am certainly open for discussion though what
that best notation is.

Same here. Man, there must be some people out there who are smarter than we and can come up with a decent name...

To stress the comparison with the Python language once more
and to give a concrete example:
In Python 2.x we have range() and xrange() In Python 3.y we will have range() with the meaning of the former xrange()
That is because xrange() is the better function and range()
is the better (simpler) notation.

Like Lennart said, Python 2 to 3 is a quantum leap. It's not comparable with Zope 3.3 -> 3.5.

Zope3-dev mailing list

Reply via email to