On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 9:30 PM, Renato Araujo Oliveira Filho <[email protected]> wrote:
> First point is the name of PSEP. I did not like this "Adopt PyQt's API > 2 for PySide" because the main point here is to create a pythonic API > and not just to follow the PyQt API. Some points of PyQt API are good, > I know, but one of the main ideas of creating a new Qt binding is to > avoid the problems found on PyQt API. I don't think following the PyQt > API is a good way to take What are the problems found on PyQt API 2? Please be concrete! > I think we need to grow by ourselves with the community helping of > course, because we are creating the bindings to the community. I'm > afraid of being always following the PyQt API and never be original to > create best bindings. I think we need to discuss, not to choose if we > will adopt the PyQt API, but what is the best way to transform the > current Qt API in a more pythonic API. We need to be creative and > original to create a real pythonic API. > > What do you think about that guys? I think being creative is good, but reinventing the wheel is not. Creating PyQt API 2 was not some ad hoc idea, but a conclusion of long discussions on PyQt mailing list by people using Qt and PyQt long time. _______________________________________________ PySide mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openbossa.org/listinfo/pyside
