Re: Simple-?? classes



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




[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]