I was under the impression that, for the most part, you are always going 
to be working through Wrapper objects.  Is this true?

>> I still think it would be easier for people to use VOS if the wrapper 
>> classes had "plain" names, and the thing being wrapped had the funny 
>> name.  E.g.
>> DataType is the wrapper for DataTypeCore or DataTypeImp or DataTypeBase.
> The same reason I stated before, I want to avoid confusion between having a 
> reference to an 
> object and having an actual copy of the object.  We could call them "Handles" 
> instead of 
> "Wrappers" (so you would access objects through DataTypeHandle or 
> VobjectHandle) which might be 
> clearer.  Changing the name would be a hassle, though (search and replace 
> across dozens of 
> files).
> This is something of an artifact of how the C++ binding is implemented (due 
> to the limits of C++) 
> and can be done more cleanly in languages with better reflection facilities 
> or dynamic typing.
>> I.e. it seems to me that at the most basic, and starting/newbie "use 
>> level" users just need to work with wrappers. Through the vobject 
>> wrappers they find children, access component wrappers, etc.  So this 
>> "use level" should be the simplest and hide some of the complexity 
>> that's going on.
> Well, the hope is that eventually newbies won't be using C++, they'll be 
> using Python or C# or 
> some other more civilized language.

vos-d mailing list

Reply via email to