On Thu, 2009-11-05 at 20:12 +0100, Andre Merzky wrote:
Quoting [Manuel Franceschini] (Nov 05 2009):
As said previously, having an additional way of doing the same thing is complicating rather than helping the user. The user will happily use the dict interface, but then notice that that is not possible anymore once he decided to have an asynchronous job. So he has to learn the "new" way anyway. Why not doing it in the first place and preventing later confusion?
Sounds good to me.
+1
But maybe its time by now to come to a conclusion - I think I am reading the same arguments over and over again in the thread ;)
So, there have been different proposals:
A) description.executable = "/bin/date"; description.set_attribute ("Executable", "/bin/date");
B) description[executable] = "/bin/date"; description.set_attribute ("Executable", "/bin/date");
C) description.attributes.executable = "/bin/date"; description.set_attribute ("Executable", "/bin/date");
D) description.attributes["Executable"] = "/bin/date"; description.set_attribute ("Executable", "/bin/date");
E) description.set_attribute ("Executable", "/bin/date");
I think C and D did not catch on - just listed for completeness. Did I forget a version?
For completeness: how to express async and task versions. I assume that would look like: description.set_attribute("Executable", "/bin/date", TaskType.NORMAL)
So, I'd love to see a show of hands for the different versions - maybe we can cut the thread short.
I opt for E: one syntax for all cases is the simplest solution. best, Mathijs