> > I think we could do a lot more with the PyGTK+ name and > http://www.pygtk.org/ to promote gobject-introspection as our new, exciting > solution. If nothing else, it rolls off the tongue much easier. Say it a few > times. > > Anybody have any other ideas here? >
I think the stupidest mistake in recent times was calling it pygobject and not inheriting the pygtk name (and I objected strongly at the time too). I think we can still change our mind here. But more worryingly, I am not confident promoting pygobject as a replacement for pygtk unless it (and gtk+g-i) is supported on windows. In my experience, in the scientific computing sphere, people still use pygtk/gtk2 because it works on windows, gtk3 gets destroyed by qt for the same reason. I don't really know what to do thought. John > -- > Jasper > > > _______________________________________________ > pygtk mailing list pygtk@daa.com.au > http://www.daa.com.au/mailman/listinfo/pygtk > Read the PyGTK FAQ: http://faq.pygtk.org/ _______________________________________________ pygtk mailing list pygtk@daa.com.au http://www.daa.com.au/mailman/listinfo/pygtk Read the PyGTK FAQ: http://faq.pygtk.org/
