Aleksi Torhamo <[email protected]> added the comment:
"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()
----------
nosy: +alexer
_______________________________________
Python tracker <[email protected]>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue909005>
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
