On Mon, 2003-12-29 at 00:12, Fred L. Drake, Jr. wrote: > I'm going to describe each issue in a separate email, including why > I've changed my mind about them and what the consequences are for > ZConfig users. Please respond to these messages if you think the > proposed changes will have a negative impact on working code.
Cool. I'll comment, and then post a separate message about some things I'd like to see in ZConfig. (Fred created a wiki on zope.org but wikis were broken there and I don't know if they've been fixed.) FTR, of course I'm using ZConfig in various Zope projects that I work on, but I'm also going to be using ZConfig in Mailman 3. > I thought it better to explicity request the same datatype was a > better approach because of way we've been using ZConfig in some of the > core packages. Each concrete section type really uses a different > datatype; sharing configuration handling is accomplished only within > Python. This is how I'm using extended section types in my code currently. The proposed change won't affect me because I explicitly specify the data types in derived section types. It seems to me unlikely that you'd have a base section type with a non-default data type, with derived section types that rely on the default data type. +0 -Barry _______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )