On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 22:18:41 +0000, "Paul A. Giannaros" <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 6:27 PM, Phil Thompson > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 18:09:56 +0000, "Paul A. Giannaros" >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Hi all, >> > >> > When there was a discussion regarding PyQt wishes for Python 3.0 I >> > proposed changing the mechanism by which you refer to symbols[1] . >> > Thus something like "QtGui.QApplication" could be refered to as >> > "Qt.Application". >> > As Qt does not use namespaces itself, there would be no conflicts of >> > names. The idea is that you'd then import any module and its symbols >> > would then be added to the Qt namespace when you've done so. This >> > system would therefore save on redundant typing while sidestepping >> > namespace pollution. >> > >> > Any thoughts on this? >> >> Nothing printable ;) >> >> You can already do Qt.QApplication is you really want to, so you are >> saving >> yourself one character. > > "from PyQt4 import Qt" imports every module if I'm not mistaken. > Wanting a sane way of referencing Qt's symbols is not the same as > wanting every symbol from every module to be imported. > > Surely losing that one character is great if it's unnecessary. The > QtRuby guys seem to use exactly the same naming system that I propose > and it works fine for them and looks much better.
I look forward to the QtRuby bindings for Qtopia. >> Qt does use namespaces. KDE uses lots of namespaces. > > The main Qt library does not for its separate modules, which is what > I'm talking about. I'm not proposing getting rid of every namespace > everywhere. > >> A class in PyQt should have the same name as the class in Qt if at all >> possible. > > Could you please elaborate as to why? Least surprise. Consistency with existing documentation. Common sense. Phil _______________________________________________ PyQt mailing list [email protected] http://www.riverbankcomputing.com/mailman/listinfo/pyqt
