On Jun 10, 3:28 am, Gregory Ewing <greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz> wrote: > Brian Blais wrote: > > In this whole discussion, I haven't seen anyone mention wax (http:// > > zephyrfalcon.org/labs/wax_primer.html) > > Just had a quick look at that. In the third example code box: > > def Body(self): > ^^^^ > self.textbox = TextBox(self, multiline=1, wrap=0) > self.AddComponent(self.textbox) > ^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Here's something unpythonic already: a couple of non-pep-8-compliant > method names. > > And a bit further down: > > self.textbox.SetFont(FIXED_FONT) > ^^^^^^^ > > Using a setter method instead of a property. > > So while it's quite likely better than raw wxPython, it fails the > pythonicity test for me. > > -- > Greg
Yes, i'll agree the syntax it not what we would want for Python. Although it could be re-written in a Pythonic fashion but then again scaling to the real Wx library would not be as "clean". However wax does have one very likable quality -- it "is" a small part of a well established GUI and very large library. But again, not what any of "us" would consider to be Pythonic "enough". -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list