Re: [RFC] Gtk2::SizeRecall - Persistently store and restore widgetsizes
- From: "A. Pagaltzis" <pagaltzis gmx de>
- To: gtk-perl-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: [RFC] Gtk2::SizeRecall - Persistently store and restore widgetsizes
- Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 05:18:50 +0200
* Emmanuele Bassi <bassi-e libero it> [2004-05-19 11:56]:
Even if we could answer "Yes, it indeed does bother us", the
following question would be: "How in the world could we enforce
any policy about any namespace we decide to use?" Thought
police or orbital mind control lasers aside, I mean. :-)
What, you don't have those? :-)
And yeah, that's precisely the question. That was why I was
arguing that it's better to use a crappier name that people are
likely to use without specifically being told to, rather than a
well thought-out namespace that they're more likely to ignore.
I mean: if someone wrote a module for a Perl widget, and that
someone decided to put it on CPAN under the Gtk2 namespace,
what could we possibly do? Should we slap him hard on the nose
with a rolled newspaper, and tell him "Bad Perl monkey, bad
Send him the videoclip. Bad Programmer!! No cookie!!
Each namespace we choose [..] has in it the seed of the
Yes. :-/ See above. We are actually in agreement.
I think that a Gtk2::[Foo] should be a "official" Gtk2-Perl
contrib module, with a policy [...], some prerequisites [...]
and some goodies [...]. We simply give developers who care an
option to make things the clean way; if there are some
developers who do not give a flying fsck about that policy,
well: entropy will increase... As it always does. :-)
Yeah. I guess that's the only sensible course after all. And if
we go that way we can as well go whole hog and pick a well
All of this is MHO, obviously.
But sensible and very much what I was thinking as well.
"If you can't laugh at yourself, you don't take life seriously enough."
] [Thread Prev