On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, James Henstridge wrote:
> One request that has come up many times is to drop the "Gtk" prefix from
> the widget class names in pygtk.
Very briefly (since I need to sleep badly): James, this is a great idea,
and I do hope you decide on it. I remember this was the one thing that
turned me off in using python and gtk together; the name prefixing seemed
like a kludge. I don't care if it breaks all my code; I really vote for
it. The precedent is there - tkinter is an example of no prefixing and
it's been around and standard for a while. This is a great idea.
> The main changes are:
> pango.Pango* -> pango.*
> gtk.Gtk* -> gtk.*
> gtk.Gdk* -> gtk.gdk.*
/me grins and hopes
> There is one other major change that I am considering (although it will
> affect the API far less) -- using the new python 2.2 features instead of
> ExtensionClass. I haven't started looking at how easy such a change would
> be (probably not that hard -- it would mainly be changes to the code
> generator and the gobject module). The change would have the following
Is pushing up the requirement for pygtk2 to Python2.2 reasonable?
If you feel it is, I definitely support the shift. IMO it's perfectly sane
-- "if you want cutting edge gtk2, you're required to upgrade to
python22." Python2.2 has interesting news (iterators and type
subclassing, yum), and very little of it will cause serious problems for
legacy applications. I don't think a distribution issue should be the
standoff here.
Take care,
-- Christian Reis, Senior Engineer, Async Open Source, Brazil.
http://async.com.br/~kiko/ | [+55 16] 272 3330 | NMFL
_______________________________________________
pygtk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.daa.com.au/mailman/listinfo/pygtk
