Hi Philipp, Florent 

> >> In particular, I'm looking for comments on problem #2.
> > 
> > Well, following the mantra of "explicit is better than 
> implicit" I'd 
> > rather have ZPT never call things magically, but I know 
> that's not the 
> > problem at hand and it poses backward compat problems anyway... Too 
> > bad though.

I don't agree if I understand this correct.
We have attributes or methods which we access from a 
page template via TAL. right?

I don't think we can speak about implicit or explicit.
The problem is, that we have one accessor method and two 
different accessible implementations. If I access a foo() 
method from TAL it is not implicit if I don't call them,
it's more a wrong concept for accessing a method.

I whould preferre if both use case get handled by default 
correct, doesn't matter if I access a attribute or a method.

Why not use the proposed PEP3000? And also additional nocall:
and call: accessor in a page template. This means existing
implementation will not break and everybody how likes to
use explicit accessors like call: or nocall: can use it 
explicit. I think this whould make everybody happy. Or not?

I think the nocall: method in TAL is only useful if we
like to get a function pointer where we call different 
times in the template. Or did I miss something?

Are there really usecases where something can go wrong
if we use the proposed PEP?

Roger Ineichen

Zope3-dev mailing list
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Reply via email to