On Oct 10, 2007, at 3:42 PM, Michael Watkins wrote:
Do you envision any changes that would enable the use of docstrings
in @[xml] functions and methods?
Not at this time.
Note that in python 3 you can say this:
@[xml]
def format_children(kids:Children, max_foo:int) -> xml:
...
I wonder if @[string] (or some other non reserved word - @[text] ? -
would be less confusing than str or plain? Then again, [plain] isn't
sprinkled very much through my code so changing that to
@[foobazfrump] wouldn't be a big chore either.
I seem to recall my early days with Quixote being somewhat puzzled
by html and plain but can't remember why that was.
@[xml] | @[str]
@[xml] | @[string]
@[xml] | @[text]
@[quoted] | @[passthrough]
@[quotesafe] | @[passthrough]
@[magicbus] | @[sober]
I currently have "xml" as the name of the xml_quote_no_more class,
so that [xml] and [str] are intended to hint that we are accumulating
xml or str values.
I'm also in favour of retaining the specific extension for such
files. In addition to keeping things explicit, I believe the .qpy
extension requirement helps gently encourage (my first choice of
words, enforce, is too strong a word) separating UI from objects. It
also makes it easy to find stuff on a file system, regardless of
whether one has lumped everything into one package or not.
I concur.
_______________________________________________
QP mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.mems-exchange.org/mailman/listinfo/qp
