I think most importantly the lowest level wrappers should exactly match its C++ counterparts, i.e. the exact same class names, method names, etc. On a higher "pythonic" level, one can obviously do a lot more, but that's why there is going to be a "level 2", is it not.
Does anybody know why/how OCC decided on their naming convention? I'm sure they must have had a similar debate and must have very good reasons for their decision. The idea of an import mechanism could work, but please just leave the option to use the current naming. - Frank Jelle Feringa wrote: > Any specific motivation why against renaming Frank? > I know API stability is sacred, but this is pretty trivial in this > case don't you think? > > -jelle > _______________________________________________ Pythonocc-users mailing list Pythonocc-users@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/pythonocc-users
