Re: Simple-?? classes

[Ross McFarland <rwmcfa1 neces com>]

On Tue, 2004-03-30 at 10:02, Carl Nygard wrote:
> 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.

most likely, although it would take being very careful.

-rm