Message84912
"not the handle_close_event() replacements, stick with handle_close()".
I'm guessing this has to do with "breaking the abstraction"?
I can't think of a situation where handle_close() is called, but close()
should not be called. If indeed so, i feel it's weird to require the
user remember to call close(), and it should IMHO be done automatically.
(I feel like i'm bitten by this each and every time i replace the
default handle_close().. :)
If the naming of handle_close_event() is not appropriate (as it "sounds"
like a layer 1 method), how about adding do_close(), and making other
places call that?
def do_close(self):
self.close()
self.handle_close() |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2009-03-31 21:19:31 | alexer | set | recipients:
+ alexer, loewis, akuchling, calvin, josiahcarlson, klimkin, janssen, giampaolo.rodola |
2009-03-31 21:19:31 | alexer | set | messageid: <1238534371.13.0.0690517251626.issue909005@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2009-03-31 21:19:30 | alexer | link | issue909005 messages |
2009-03-31 21:19:28 | alexer | create | |
|