On Tuesday 21 March 2006 9:54 am, Sundance wrote: > I heard Giovanni Bajo said: > > As I said elsewhere, I believe this kind of improvements belongs to a > > separate wrapper, such as PyPyQt built on top of PyQt. Others would > > prefer a PyQt compilation switch or something like that. > > Hello Giovanni, > > I'd cast my vote in favor of a wrapper. I think we already brought up > the idea when discussing the Qt namespace issue. > > Essentially, it does make a lot of sense to provide the C++ Qt API 'as > is' to people migrating from C++ to Python, but the majority of the > PyQt developper community, as far as I can tell, is made of experienced > Python programmers, and a more Pythonic interface would make a lot of > sense as well. > > Now, though, do we make that a separate project, or something that would > ship with PyQt as it currently exists? (And by this I mean, really, > Phil, do you want to have your hands in that wrapper, or would you > rather it be a community project?)
It's got to be a community project... 1. I simply don't have any spare time. 2. While I think it's a good idea in theory, I think it's a bad idea in practice. To expand on 2. I think the benefits would be relatively small as I think PyQt is naturally fairly Pythonic anyway - certainly more so that other toolkits. I can understand why there have been (several) attempts at more Pythonic wrappers around other toolkits - but they always seem to peter out after doing the easy stuff. Of course I wouldn't want to stop anybody having a go - but I'd recommend some hard thinking beforehand. Phil _______________________________________________ PyKDE mailing list [email protected] http://mats.imk.fraunhofer.de/mailman/listinfo/pykde
