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
> 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