le 02.11.2007 10:44 Diez B. Roggisch a écrit: > On Thursday 01 November 2007 10:28:19 remi jolin wrote: > >> le 01.11.2007 02:26 Roger Demetrescu a écrit: >> >>> Short story: >>> >>> We want to hear your voice to help us decide how @paginate should >>> handle "out of bound" pages. >>> >>> ====== >>> >> ... >> >> >>> Long story: >>> >>> >>> Now, if we tamper our tg_paginate_no once again, but with 0 (zero) or >>> negative numbers, we get: >>> >>> page -3 => result = [] >>> page -2 => result = [1, 2] >>> page -1 => result = [3, 4, 5] >>> page 0 => result = [] >>> >> shouldn't it gives >> page -1 => [7, 8] (the last page) >> page -2 => [4, 5, 6] >> etc. ? >> > > No. Roger is right to propose a sanitizing of user-input, especially for the > cases where the results may change dynamically _while_ paging. > > Using the negative page offset semantics above is neither intuitive (the > pages > are numbered, it's not that pagination shows a _range_, so what we are > talking about is > > pages[-2] > > which is _one_ page, not the last 3 ones. Why should negative pagination > values suddenly change the total number of results shown? > > pages[-2] should produce the penultinate page, nothing less, nothing more (and pages[-1] the last page). I don't understand why pages[-1] should produce a page with items 3, 4, 5 as stated by Roger. > And don't forget that the negative numbering is a (very) convenient feature > of > python's list-indices, but _not_ something people in general have any > expectations about. > > > Diez > > > >
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TurboGears" group. To post to this group, send email to turbogears@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
