Re: Simple-?? classes

[Ross McFarland <rwmcfa1 neces com>]

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. 

> If you do consider renaming these, I'd also like to put in a preemptive 
> vote against "Lite".

i'm not a fan of Helper either.

-rm