On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 11:25 PM, Hugo Parente Lima <[email protected]> wrote: > "foo" is a bool, so the getter can be "isFoo" or "hasFoo", it depends on the > meaning of "foo". So the name clashes probably can occur only on boolean > properties where the, getter name is different from the property name. But the > Qt API was specially crafted to avoid these clashes, anyway if they occur we > can > just rename the property or method to the better name available to avoid the > name clash and continue with a pythonic API.
Can you please give an example for when such name clash would occur ? Also, what would be considered a "better name" for the property? > > Compatibility > ============= > > The proposed API is incompatible with the known PySide and PyQt API, but since > PySide is not yet widely used and hasn't reached version 1.0.0, it seems > reasonable to break compatibility for the sake of getting PySide "right". > I also think it makes sense to break things now, but maybe we could provide an intermediate release that would be backward compatible to the getters and setters a'la QT (albeit quite artificial for Pythoneers) and after much of the code been ported, then cut the support. Now, thinking of the QT approach, I know this would be a nice to have for people keen on the dynamic nature of Python, however, is it really worth the trouble? That is, I feel the Qt's approach contribute much to its nice flowing and structured developed and we might just be fine preserving it in PySide, although compromising on the Pythonicity of it? Really just my 2c. :-) Sivan _______________________________________________ PySide mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openbossa.org/listinfo/pyside
