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? Regards Roger Ineichen _______________________________________________ Zope3-dev mailing list [email protected] Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
