On 10/21/05, Phil Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm totally unsympathetic to the idea of a *separate* Pythonic API to Qt. > The Python GUI toolkit "market" is fragmented enough as it is - this would > only add more confusion for (relatively) little benefit. > > People come to PyQt either as existing Python programmers looking for a > decent toolkit, or Qt/KDE programmers looking for a decent programming > language. I think the former is a larger group than the latter and this > difference will only become more pronounced with the Windows GPL version. > > 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. > > Phil >
For me, one of the strong points of Qt is that the documentation for it is great. Although the documention is for C++, it's still a handy reference for PyQT programmers because the mapping from Qt/C++ to PyQt is almost always straightforward. I'd like to keep the non-straight-forward mappings in the documentation to a minimum, because no one is going to do as good of a job as writing documentation for an API that is very different from Qt's. --gilbert _______________________________________________ PyKDE mailing list [email protected] http://mats.imk.fraunhofer.de/mailman/listinfo/pykde
