Re: [Python-markdown-discuss] XHTML or HTML?

[Waylan L. <wa...@gm...>]

On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Yuri Takhteyev <qar...@gm...> wrote:
> Is there any obvious benefit to not just adding output_format as a
> parameter to convert()?  What do we gain with setting this as a field
> of the instance?

More control and possibilities for extensions. As extensions are
instance specific, an extension that relies on a specific
output_format may need a new instance of the Markdown class to change
the output_format. For example, an extension may add different
postprocessors depending on the output format. The only clean way to
do that is by keeping it instance specific.

Granted, the above is all speculation. I don't have any specific
extensions in mind that would need this right now. But after playing
with the code both ways, this feels much cleaner

Remember the markdown.markdown shortcut function does take
output_format as a keyword, so this only effects the end user using
the class directly.

>
>> Well, we could, except that property requires new-style classes -
>> which python-markdown does not use. To be honest, I don't know why.
>> Perhaps for historical reasons. Although, I'm not aware of any reason
>> holding us back from changing that.
>
> No particularly good reason, considering that it's 2009 now. However,
> we should stick with what's available in 2.3.

According to the docs, new-style classes were introduced in 2.2. There
were a few additional features added later, but those shouldn't affect
us. Additionally, I have used new-style classes myself in 2.3 without
incident. For that matter, so does Django which has always supported
2.3.


-- 
----
\X/ /-\ `/ |_ /-\ |\|
Waylan Limberg