On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 01:02:15PM +1100, Malcolm Tredinnick wrote: > The language bindings proposal contains some moderately arbitrary rules > and doing things in one particular way that doesn't necessarily > accomodate all languages nicely. As a result, there are still some > things to work out from the Python side.
Can you help us out by pointing out what you see as being the problematic issues? I find the fact that we would need to break apart packages a bit annoying (and potentially a burden for releases and etc). > My concern is that languages not signing onto this proposal end up > looking second-class (which would be a tragedy in the Python case. At Could be the case, you're right. > this point the GNOME Python bindings are some of the best non-C bindings > around in many areas). But making things harder for somebody like James > H. is not productive either. I haven't really formed much of an opinion Well, it depends on what those things are -- we've been talking about more active volunteer participation, which should help significantly, and if we can get a process cooked down, it shouldn't be too hard. > beyond this -- I like the idea, I'm not mad keen on the current > implementation and now that it has been announced, it may be more > difficult to change. I suspect the difficult part could be changing Murray's mind over something he's decided, but I think this is still in proposal status, and pygtk's position would weigh in -- that is, as soon as we have a consistent position at all <wink>. Take care, -- Christian Robottom Reis | http://async.com.br/~kiko/ | [+55 16] 261 2331 _______________________________________________ pygtk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.daa.com.au/mailman/listinfo/pygtk Read the PyGTK FAQ: http://www.async.com.br/faq/pygtk/
