On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Sivan Greenberg <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 2:03 AM, Hugo Parente Lima > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I'm sure that Qt doesn't use properties for one single reason, they > doesn't > > exists in standard C++, just in some compiler extensions like Borland > C++. > > > > Right, so in view of this, I think it is even more important to > provide "choice" (as depicted in the python philosophy, as in "don't > enforce, empower"). > > So for me, which I happen to like the Qt approach to that, I would > like to still use the unpythonic setters and getters approach, to > maintain more compatibility with my Qt/C++ code once I port it there > after I've been prototyping. > > But for others who are hard core snake worshipers , let's allow them > to use them properties :) > > Sivan > _______________________________________________ > PySide mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openbossa.org/listinfo/pyside > I second Sivan on this subject: it would be useful to continue supporting the Qt approach for those PySide users who will need to switch to C++ at some time in their applications lifecicle. -- Luca Donaggio
_______________________________________________ PySide mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openbossa.org/listinfo/pyside
