survey: is shelve broken? should it be fixed?

[Emile van Sebille]

Alex Martelli
> Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> > I wouldn't call the feature 'smart', but rather describe somehow
what
> > it does,
>
> What it does it "avoid laying a trap for the user by having a behavior
> that tends to be rather surprising".  But that's rather longish as an
> argument name.  HOW it does it by "keeping a cache of values retrieved
> and/or stored until the next call to method .sync" (that's in the
patch
> I put on SF, though I think that, as usual for caches, it should be
> done with weakrefs where feasible, while still handing not wr-able
> values).  That's rather longish too.  If we stick to short adjectives,
> alternatives to 'smart' might be 'sane' or 'unsurprising', ot of
course
> we could flip the boolean and call it 'dumb', 'insane',
'surprising':-).
>

You also used 'modifiable' (shorten to modify). 'Persistent' (persist),
'updateable' (update), 'dynamic' (vs boolean flipped 'static') or
perhaps untrap?

Should we call the next improvement switch argument 'smarter'?  ;-)

--

Emile van Sebille
emile at fenx.com

---------