Phil Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm completely open to making the existing API more Pythonic - this is the > time to do it. For example, I did casually float the idea of not using C++ > types in signal signatures in a previous post - but nobody bit.
I didn't, because of the reasons explained previously: I believe it would just cause more confusion, in the current PyQt design. It's just too handy to go looking to the signature in the Qt Assistant and use it. I don't want to go check in two different manuals. Until now, PyQt's goal has been to adhere as much as possible to Qt, to not confuse existing Qt users and I think it's a noble goal. I also understand that this is not ideal for a Python-only programmer. -- Giovanni Bajo _______________________________________________ PyKDE mailing list PyKDE@mats.imk.fraunhofer.de http://mats.imk.fraunhofer.de/mailman/listinfo/pykde
