On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 6:19 AM, Matti Airas <[email protected]> wrote: > On 27.06.2011 17:50, ext Hugo Parente Lima wrote: >> >> You may ask, why you didn't add this code to PySide already? simple... >> because >> QtCore isn't the right place for it, but a separated module probably >> called >> "shiboken" and we didn't it yet. > > I might sound like a broken record, but I think this is again an API design > decision and we should have a PSEP for defining such content. > > Also, would "shiboken" be a good name for a module having such > functionality? To me it sounds awfully lot just like exposing our internal > implementation details to Python. How about using just the top-level PySide > module instead?
Hi Matti, I think we don't need a PSEP, PSEPs are for PySide things, this is specific to Shiboken based bindings, PySide is included as well but it isn't the focus, I mean, this module is not made to access PySide internal stuff, but Shiboken internal stuff, it's highly tied to Shiboken, if we create a PSEP and change the PySide backend from Shiboken to something else in an unknown future the PSEP could turn into a non sense PSEP. This also explain why to name the module "shiboken" instead of put it into PySide module, there's no technical reasons to make this module depend on PySide and being a separate module all Shiboken based bindings can have gain. Regards P.S.: Suggestions about the module implementation, what functions it need to have, etc could be made here or on the bug report[1], I'll read both anyway. [1] http://bugs.pyside.org/show_bug.cgi?id=902 > ma. > _______________________________________________ > PySide mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.pyside.org/listinfo/pyside > _______________________________________________ PySide mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pyside.org/listinfo/pyside
