Michael McLay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Is it time to look for a replacement that would be a comfortable fit
> within the standard Python library?
Yes. Speaking as a member of python-dev and soomebody who discusses this and
other subjects with Guido semi-regularly, I can report that he is aware of the
problem. I suspect he might be receptive.
> Of the big three; PyGtk, wxPython, and PyQT; I believe the PyGtk
> package is probably the closest match to the Python coding
> philosophy and style. It is also closer to the Tkinter programming
> model. PyGtk is written in C and the widget library seems to be a
> superset of Tkinter. I also think James has done an excellent job of
> making use of the Python 2.2 API for creating classes. The library
> has a very natural Python feel to it. Would others on this list care
> to comment on this assertion?
I largely agree. But...
The biggest weakness of PyGTK at this moment is woefully inadequate
documentation. The API documentation is simply not up to the standard of
detail and clarity expected in a Python standard library.
The most useful thing anyone could do towards this proposal would
be to fix that.
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>
_______________________________________________
pygtk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.daa.com.au/mailman/listinfo/pygtk
Read the PyGTK FAQ: http://www.async.com.br/faq/pygtk/
