Re: Simple-?? classes

[Carl Nygard <cjnygard fast net>]

On Tue, 2004-03-30 at 16:59, Ross McFarland wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-03-30 at 13:25, Steve Fink wrote:
> > Speaking as a newbie observer -- why are these all called "Simple"? That 
> > just seems unnecessarily vague to me, especially if you're talking about 
> > creating a whole class hierarchy of them. Isn't there some adjective 
> > that better describes what distinguishes all of these classes? I'd 
> > suggest "Bound", but I won't, because I haven't used any of these yet 
> > and so have no clue what they're doing. :-)
> 
> basically my logic was this: if i'm new and i'm wanting to create a list
> and see a package called Gtk2::SimpleList it's a pretty good assumption
> that it's intended to make creating a list simple. i don't think Bound
> accomplishes this. Now as for the other things that have been discussed
> on this list, i'm not convinved that they belong under the Simple
> namespace. many of them don't seem all that simplier, they do seem more
> like Bound things. more alternative routes than simpler interfaces. 

I agree with you.  In fact, part of this discussion may be moot, take a
look at the Tie/Bind implementation.  I think the only thing remaining
in the Simple:: space would be the OptionMenu/List/Menu code, which
seems common and can benefit from the simplified interface.

If SimpleList is moved to Simple::List, isn't it possible to use some
perl magic to yank in the code from Simple::List and make it appear as
Gtk2::SimpleList?  I vaguely recall some cookbook code or tutorial
example that did this type of thing.

Regards,
Carl