On Oct 10, 2007, at 3:42 PM, Michael Watkins wrote:


> Do you envision any changes that would enable the use of docstrings
> in @[xml] functions and methods?

Not at this time.

Note that in python 3 you can say this:

@[xml]
def format_children(kids:Children, max_foo:int) -> xml:
     ...

> I wonder if @[string] (or some other non reserved word - @[text] ? -
> would be less confusing than str or plain? Then again, [plain] isn't
> sprinkled very much through my code so changing that to
> @[foobazfrump] wouldn't be a big chore either.
>
> I seem to recall my early days with Quixote being somewhat puzzled
> by html and plain but can't remember why that was.
>
> @[xml] | @[str]
> @[xml] | @[string]
> @[xml] | @[text]
> @[quoted] | @[passthrough]
> @[quotesafe] | @[passthrough]
> @[magicbus] | @[sober]

I currently have "xml" as the name of the xml_quote_no_more class,
so that [xml] and [str] are intended to hint that we are accumulating
xml or str values.

> I'm also in favour of retaining the specific extension for such
> files. In addition to keeping things explicit, I believe the .qpy
> extension requirement helps gently encourage (my first choice of
> words, enforce, is too strong a word) separating UI from objects. It
> also makes it easy to find stuff on a file system, regardless of
> whether one has lumped everything into one package or not.

I concur.