On 20.04.2010 17:43, ext Mark Summerfield wrote:
Seems good to me. However, there needs to be a decision about whether to
provide the QVariant(type, object) factory function or static
QVariant.type() methods. I prefer the factory function.
Oops, should've read more carefully. *blushes*
Also, I should have written them my Pythonically (rather than like
C++!):
# static functions approach
QVariant.ushort(pythonObject) -> QVariant
QVariant.uint(pythonObject) -> QVariant
# factory function approach (based on Richard Dale's ideas)
QVariant("ushort", pythonObject) -> QVariant
QVariant("uint", pythonObject) -> QVariant
Applied this.
I have to say I still prefer the former approach. It gives a fighting
chance to syntactic checkers (as in IDEs) to detect typos and other
errors. Also, since the underlying Qt QVariant only accepts a limited
number of types and probably won't change too much (if at all), the
increased versatility would be kinda wasted (if I have understood
correctly).
Furthermore, static functions is the method PyQt already uses, and if
there are no significant advantages in either syntax, I think we ought
to pick the more comformant one. I'd even go as far to change the
function names as follows:
QVariant.fromUInt(pythonObject) -> QVariant
It's a bit uglier but that's the syntax PyQt already uses and the names
would be identical to QVariant.Type constants.
But then again, I'm hardly experienced enough on PyQt/PySide programming
to have strong opinions about this one.
Cheers,
ma.
_______________________________________________
PySide mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openbossa.org/listinfo/pyside
