On 2010-04-20, Matti Airas wrote:
> On 19.04.2010 18:48, ext Mark Summerfield wrote:
> > Yes. And another benefit would be that in effect this would cover both
> > API 1 and API 2. Code using API 1 (plus code that really needed to
> > specify the type) would explicitly use QVariant and code using API 2
> > would just ignore QVariant and use Python types directly. So best of
> > both worlds:-)
>
> Am I correct in interpreting the discussion so that we're reaching a
> consensus about going purely with API 2 for both Python 2 and 3? On
> Python 2, strings would be automatically converted and returned strings
> would always be unicode. Also, native Python objects would be
> automatically converted to QVariants, although the QVariant class would
> still be available for explicit conversions.
I think that would be great:-)
> If this is the case, let's modify the PSEP draft accodingly, I'll get a
> green light from all the core dev team members, and mark the PSEP as
> accepted.
I'll mail in the updated PSEP in the hope that it's accepted.
> > (Although I always get 2 copies of every mail on this list...)
>
> Maybe you're subscribed twice? I'll check if I have the mailing list
> admin password (or ask the OpenBossa guys to check).
Thanks!
--
Mark Summerfield, Qtrac Ltd, www.qtrac.eu
C++, Python, Qt, PyQt - training and consultancy
"Advanced Qt Programming" - ISBN 0321635906
_______________________________________________
PySide mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openbossa.org/listinfo/pyside
