divmod-users team mailing list archive

[Laurens Van Houtven <_@xxxxxx>]

Okay, I have a failing test case, it's on Launchpad:
https://code.launchpad.net/~lvh/divmod.org/storeless-conform-1118498

Why does powerupsFor not have a special case for IPowerupIndirector? is
empowered.powerupsFor(IPowerupIndirector) a valid thing to do? What does
that *mean*?
 Currently that specialcase is only in powerupsFor.

I'm considering replacing the implementation of __conform__ with:

try:
    return self.powerupsFor(interface).next()
except AttributeError:  # self.store == None, self.store.query ->
AttributeError
    return None

... modulo the IPowerupIndirector thing, which may have to move to
powerupsFor or may have to be included in that definition.


On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Laurens Van Houtven <_@xxxxxx> wrote:

> Okay, cool, I'm writing a failing test case now.
>
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 3:06 PM, Tristan Seligmann
> <mithrandi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Laurens Van Houtven <_@xxxxxx> wrote:
> >> Empowered.__conform__ gives up if there is no store. That makes sense
> >> for persisted powerups (obviously), but it means that the following
> >> doesn't work:
> >
> > If inMemoryPowerUp and powerupsFor work for unstored items then I
> > think __conform__ ought to work as well.
> > --
> > mithrandi, i Ainil en-Balandor, a faer Ambar
> >
> > --
> > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~divmod-users
> > Post to     : divmod-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~divmod-users
> > More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
>
>
> --
> cheers
> lvh
>



-- 
cheers
lvh