Re: [Fab-user] Completed suggestions: prompt (#5, #6)

[Christian Vest Hansen]

On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Jeff Forcier <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 5:18 AM, Niklas Lindström <address@hidden> wrote:
>> I thought it was your suggestion? :)
>
> Was it? If so, I apologize :(
>
>> Anyway, I agree it might be
>> cleaner with e.g. a 'match' kw (that can take a string *or*
>> precompiled regexp I suppose)..
>>
>> And skip the callable-tests for validate (if it's not None, it should
>> be called). Not the least since we have no "callable" in Python 3..
>>
>> Any votes on if I should rework it like this?
>
> I'd like to hear Christian's feedback,

I'd prefer to not get a new `match` keyword parameter. Instead I think
I'd rather expose the/a Regexp constructor whos instances can be used
as functions of str to bool for the purpose of validation.

While callable() can be reimplemented in terms of the new Callable, I
agree that the intent of that particular conditional is better
expressed with `is not None`. Given the Regexp stuff above, then
providing a validator that cannot be called is a bug and should cause
an error message. Pretty messages > trace backs, though giving people
the line number of their offense is a good thing.

> and I think I may also do some
> research to see what the general consensus is among the Python
> community, about this sort of thing. I could see it going either way
> but I'm sure someone smarter than me has already weighed the pluses
> and minuses and figured out which is cleaner.
>
> -Jeff
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fab-user mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fab-user
>



-- 
Venlig hilsen / Kind regards,
Christian Vest Hansen.