On Monday 30 April 2007 14:50:29 Giovanni Bajo wrote: > On 30/04/2007 9.11, Mark Summerfield wrote: > > But I agree with the general point that using "import *" is reasonable > > when you have a large library like PyQt4---providing that library has > > sensible export behaviour. For example, I _assume_ that the PyQt4 > > libraries will only export things with names matching /Q[A-Z]\w+/ and > > would expect anything that didn't have such a name either not to be > > exported or to have a special prefix such as "qt" to avoid unpleasant > > surprises. > > Well, I had always assumed this as well, but it looks like we were both > wrong > > :) The QTextStream non member functions > > (http://doc.trolltech.com/4.2/qtextstream.html#related-non-members) are not > qualified in any way, and, worse, there are two named "hex" and "oct". > > Anyway, not that I care specifically: I'm going to prod the trolls about > this issue (it's really unconvenient in C++ as well).
<prodded troll> Well, the main dislike about the "consolidated" module for me is that unless it contains all pyqt4 modules it can never be clear which ones are really present on a given box. It will depend on packaging (by 3rd parties), or even worse packaging or source building by 3rd parties where the modules are split up or are build-time settings. So it will be a very unportable thing to use. For that reason alone its use should be discouraged. Namespace clashes are second to that IMHO. Needless to say that my py-qt4-* ports for FreeBSD (yes, split up) don't provide the consolidated module. Once you split the modules into seperate packages, managing a consolidated module is a package-list nightmare. It can be touched/changed by any of the py-qt4-* packages that are installed or updated afterwards. Another reason to not use the metamodule :) </prodded troll> IMHO, Dan _______________________________________________ PyQt mailing list [email protected] http://www.riverbankcomputing.com/mailman/listinfo/pyqt
