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