Re: Simple-?? classes

["A. Pagaltzis" <pagaltzis gmx de>]

* Ross McFarland <rwmcfa1 neces com> [2004-03-31 00:02]:
> 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. 

There *aren't* all that many widgets for which a useful Simple
derivative is conceivable. What simplifications would a
SimpleButton entail? It's those dealing with some complex nested
data structure encapsulated by classes on the C side which would
benefit from a Simple flavour.

-- 
Regards,
Aristotle
 
"If you can't laugh at yourself, you don't take life seriously enough."