As a new user, I vote against having multiple levels of wrapper. I don't want to have to choose between an elegant API and a complete API. I also vote against abbreviating the crap out of name spaces and embedding them into class names. If there's a way to avoid either (i.e. a mostly automated way to give the modules beautiful names and strip the prefixes off the classes) that would sound very appealing.
On Apr 28, 2009, at 10:36 AM, Frank Conradie wrote: > 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 _______________________________________________ Pythonocc-users mailing list Pythonocc-users@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/pythonocc-users
