> Main reason not to do so: KISS! > > Having many functions doing more-less the same (even when overloading > these) is a very *BAD* idea which which populates the API, brings > confusion to it, you newer know what what is responsible for what, it > is more difficult to remember parameters, manual is bigger and nobody is > happy. > > If you like different syntax, there is nothing to stop you to define > your own simple function wrappers which does what you describe. > > > R.
Aha, the KISS principle ... very well. That's a good reason. But is fltk really KISS-compliant right now? I'm sorry, but begin(context); draw() rect() line() end(context); is *not* simple, implicit assumptions never make your program *simple* ... instead draw(context) rect(context) line(context) is pretty much simple, any beginner programmer would understand this petty well. The drawback is having always to write more parameter ... but is it that bad? it doesn't mean the program will get less efficient, any compiler would optimize away the parameters. And yes, I could write my personal wrapper ... I could write my personal functions ... I could write everything down to the assembler level and discover again the wheel. Well, I try to avoid the "not done by me" syndrome. In my humble opinion anybody striving to productivity does it, therefore to make fltk popular and (even more) useful I wouldn't avoid to consider this dimension. Consider that simply going on because of present habits isn't a well-founded rationale. _______________________________________________ fltk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk
