[Grok-dev] Re: "baseclass" or "ignore"?

Christian Theune ct at gocept.com
Thu Oct 25 09:14:52 EDT 2007


Am Donnerstag, den 25.10.2007, 14:59 +0200 schrieb Martijn Faassen:
> Brandon Craig Rhodes wrote:
> > While reading template code, it occurred to me that:
> > 
> >     class MyClass(...):
> >         grok.ignore()
> > 
> > is more readable than:
> > 
> >     class MyClass(...):
> >         grok.baseclass()
> > 
> > which seems to communicate something one step removed from what the
> > directive is really going to do.  I suppose I'm going to receive the
> > objection that things are nice the way things are and that if clarity
> > were our aim we would have to say: :-)
> > 
> >     class MyClass(...):
> >         grok.dont_grok_this_class_but_still_grok_its_subclasses()
> > 
> 
> grok.ignore() sounds like a reasonable name. Do we have cases where we 
> want martian to ignore a class without it being a base class? If we do, 
> that'd be a good argument for 'grok.ignore()'.

Another alternative might be 'grok.abstract()'

However, that's not a verb. I'd be happy with grok.ignore.

Christian

-- 
gocept gmbh & co. kg - forsterstrasse 29 - 06112 halle/saale - germany
www.gocept.com - ct at gocept.com - phone +49 345 122 9889 7 -
fax +49 345 122 9889 1 - zope and plone consulting and development

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Url : http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/grok-dev/attachments/20071025/ee4b9611/attachment.bin


More information about the Grok-dev mailing list