Hallöchen! Grant Edwards writes:
> [...] > > IMO, a few of the "un-Pythonic" things about wxPython are: > > 1) Window ID numbers. When I started to use wxPython, there was a newly-introduced wx.ID_ANY that you could give instead of -1. My eyes filtered it out after a couple of hours, just as they do with "self". > [...] > > 2) the "flags" parameter. Well, I like flags, and I don't see that they are unpythonic. I find the code they produce very legible. > [...] > > 3) the parent/child tree See wx.ID_ANY. > [...] > > 4) sizers Maybe because I come from TeX/LaTeX, i liked sizers immediately. They worked well for me. > [...] > > 5) binding > > "What? you wanted a button that _did_ something when you > clicked it?" You're right, this can be better. There's too much explicitness. However, if you really hate the construct, you can define a shortcut. > [...] > > 6) Thousands of wx.UPPER_CASE_INTEGER_HEX_CONSTANTS Thank you for the thorough explanations but in my opinion your points are minor. Additionally, most of them are a matter of taste. I don't think that because you didn't find sizers convenient, or some parts too explicit, you can say that wxWidgets is un-Pythonic. I rather have the impression that you like terseness, which is totally okay but a different thing. I agree that changing the naming conventions and making use of properties would increase pythonicness, but on an already high level. Tschö, Torsten. -- Torsten Bronger, aquisgrana, europa vetus Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list