Kevin Dangoor wrote: > > The example that you've put together here actually makes me think even > more that it should be the way it is now. Here's what I mean: > > ... > > And, I really like the fact that I have an instance here and not a > class. I still think that the form I've defined is a *thing* not a > *kind of thing*, which implies an instance and not a class. > > Unfortunately, one way is not provably better than the other (emacs > vs. vi, anyone?). If people really prefer the declarative style, it > can certainly be made to work. It just feels less like "normal" OO > code to me. > > (By the way, the way you define SQLObjects *is* normal OO, because in > those cases you are defining classes and not instances. FormEncode's > schemas are where the line gets blurred.) >
I totally agree (also on the FormEncode way of doing this). I don't see any need to put the form you are constructing into another class definition that needs to be instanced later, there is already the FormTable widgets class that act as a constructor of the instance you are building and want to use. But my vision can clearly be wrong, as you said is just like vim vs emacs. Ciao Michele
