[Zope-dev] Circular dependency hell.

[Christian Theune]

On 04/20/2010 10:48 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Fred Drake<fdrake at gmail.com>  wrote:
> ...
>>> I think the issue is with that it's not standard protocol the way we use it
>>> - at least I can't find our use of __bases__ documented in Python's
>>> documentation[1] about __bases__ and thus have a hard time saying we're
>>> following standard protocols.
>>
>> Our uses of __bases__ and __parent__ don't match Python,
>
> We disagree wrt __bases__.
>
>> and there's a
>> general BDFL proclamation that underware are for Python
>> implementations (IIRC).
>
> That proclamation changed over time. It was much weaker in the past.
> It was strengthened with
>
> "applications should not expect to define
> additional names using this convention. The set of names of this class
> defined by Python may be extended in future versions."
>
> in Python 2.3.
>
> In fact, Guido was aware of and didn't object to my use of __*__names.
>
>>   While we can argue that our use is
>> reasonable, the fact that there's reasonable dissent suggests
>> something different would have been a better choice.
>
> The fact that there is dissent from a choice doesn't mean that it
> is wrong.
>
> I'm not saying that my use of __*__s was "right" in
> any absolute sense. I get that there are differences of opinion.
 >
> To say that zope.testing "promotes" layers the wrong way, simply
> because it used the name __bases__, which doesn't even go
> against the BDFL's pronouncement on the use of __*__s is
> misleading at best.

Something in this discussion thread is borked. I sense tension. I sense 
that the argument doesn't have direction and I don't feel invited to 
share my thoughts.

I'd like to figure out why that is because I want this to happen less 
often. (Right now this caused me to spend 30 minutes not writing a 
technical answer which makes me sad because I think in real life this 
issue could have been debated much more quickly and constructively.)

For now I'll go to bed, maybe looking at it tomorrow will help.

-- 
Christian Theune · ct at gocept.com
gocept gmbh & co. kg · forsterstraße 29 · 06112 halle (saale) · germany
http://gocept.com · tel +49 345 1229889 0 · fax +49 345 1229889 1
Zope and Plone consulting and development

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3830 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-dev/attachments/20100420/c62e4db5/attachment.bin