On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 07:58, Christian Robottom Reis wrote: > 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).
That would seem to be a problem. It is a fairly arbitrary imposition, so an unnecessary use (waste) of time in the longer term. > > 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. Filling out missing bits in the bindings could certainly benefit from more participation. I am obviously remiss in this department myself, since I have the knowledge to contribute missing bits, but I never seem to get myself organised enough to sit down and fill in holes for an evening a week. It feels like one thing we are missing is a status list: somebody coming in with a couple of hours to whack away at filling in missing pieces of the bindings is not necessarily going to easily be able to find a place to work. > > 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>. My main disappointment in the "proposal" at the moment is that whilst it should still be in proposal status it is being pitched like a done deal. Well, it could be much further than proposal status, but that would require some flexibility in some of the more "form over substance" aspects. I don't really want to go on and on about this, since I will rapidly become bitter and twisted and insult Murray's efforts. On the whole, his idea is pretty good. And I think we (you and I) are mostly on the same page here. Cheers, Malcolm _______________________________________________ pygtk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.daa.com.au/mailman/listinfo/pygtk Read the PyGTK FAQ: http://www.async.com.br/faq/pygtk/
