Alan Isaac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is anything lost by not maintaining this reference (other > > than error checking ...)? If I feel the observer needs > > access to the subject, what is wrong with just having the > > subject pass itself as part of the notification? It reduces the number of places the observer can be called from, because now the event source is part of the function signature. If you omit the event source in the signature, you gain looser coupling - it's the observer business to create the dependency. Also, consider the situation where you want all investors to refresh their idea about stock prices (because of, short network failure). It's easy to run through a list of them and call update() for everybody, while it's not so easy to find out what stock the investor is observing (that's the investors business!) and pass that object to the investor in the call. Are these school questions btw? ;-) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
