On Aug 5, 2005, at 2:33 PM, Tim Peters wrote:
[Julien Anguenot]
...
The order argument could be an integer with a default value to 0
added
to the registration method.
[Gary Poster]
I usually like the word 'priority' for this sort of value, rather
than
'order'. To me 'order' implies unique value--i.e., with 'order' I am
mildly surprised to learn that two entries may have the same
order. I
am not surprised that two entries may share a priority.
It's wholly unclear to me, given a callback with associated value 0
and
another with associated value 9999999, which one is supposed to be
invoked
first. If the parameter is called "priority", then I'd expect
9999999 to
"win"; if it's called "order", then 0.
To each his own, I suppose--'first priority' and 'last priority' is
my model, in which, at the least, a priority of 1 would be first
priority and a priority of 9999999 is a reasonable last priority
(acknowledging a positive infinity as something that would take the
honor of being reliably last priority, then). A priority of 0, and a
negative priority, start to muddle the model a bit, certainly.
But anyway, if you don't see 'priority' in that way, then yes, it is
perhaps unclear in a different dimension than 'order' is unclear. :-)
Gary
_______________________________________________
For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki:
http://www.zope.org/Wikis/ZODB/
ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev
