Gary Poster wrote:
= Why not tuple multi-adaptation in the __call__? =
I'm somewhat surprised that some who have been loudest about not breaking backwards compatibility are OK with breaking this, given the two reports from the very small sample we have here of users.
Do you really think introducing tuple adaptation on __call__ is risky? I don't like having two ways to look up an adapter on the interface: __call__() and adapt()
= But Gary, I thought you didn't like ``adapt``? =
No, I don't. I think it is a hindrance to understanding, and I would prefer ``instance``, for example (or maybe ``create``?). That said, people disagree with me. Going along with ``adapt`` but getting this new syntax gets me a lot of improvements from my perspective. I think people on the Launchpad team would be happy with this. I would explain ``adapt`` as "look, it's a factory," but, oh well. Progress usually means compromise.
I agree, because I think an API like "instance()" suggest a unification of adapter and utility lookup. :) Regards, Martijn