Re: [Fxruby-users] API documentation

[Lyle J. <ly...@kn...>]

Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng wrote:

>This seems to be the sort of essential functiaonality that deserves
>encapsulation in some kind of object.  Fox has a good set of widgets
>with things like dials that Tk doesn't have, etc, but in trying to
>move from Tk to Fox I have been finding the learning curve very
>steep.  It seemed easier to get going with Tk.  So how can I change
>this from just a whinge :-) to constructive criticism?  Well, I'm
>new to fox so lots of this may be invalid, but I think that Fox
>would benefit from having:
>
> * A 2-d object that holds graphic state, as mentioned above.
>
Agreed.

> * A simple means to operate controls programmatically, to aid test
>   driven design.  I'd suggest something like FXPseudoMouse and
>   FXPseudoKeyboard for starters, which can be pointed at an
>   FXObject and will manage the sending of events to it.
>
Sure, this sounds like an interesting approach to the problem.

> * More documentation with examples is needed, but this is ongoing
>   anyway, and will happen in due course.  I think a map, graphical
>   if necessary, of the widget hierarchy would be really useful,
>   like Rdoc's middle pane but tree structured...? There are some of
>   these on the web, but I can't seem to see the motorways/freeways
>   for all the minor roads and cul-de-sacs that show up on the maps.
>
I think RDoc has an option for generating inheritance diagrams as part 
of its output. Let me investigate that and see how well it works in 
practice...

> * I'm not entirely sure why FXTreeItems are not just FXTreeLists,
>   in the way that Trees are normally defined in computer science.
>
Yes, we've discussed this previously on the list. I do not know all of 
the factors that went into this design decision by Jeroen, but it's 
unlikely to change at this point.

>Do these comments seem valid, or are they the equivalent of saying
>"If I write
>#define { BEGIN
>#define } END
>I can make C code more like the Pascal I've grown to love" :-), (i.e.
>tactless and rather stupid in the hindsight I don't have yet)?
>
Of course your comments are valid! But it's important to note that like 
so many open source software projects, FXRuby is something that I work 
on in my spare time, for free. So, for example, I can get motivated to 
write more documentation because I understand that this activity has the 
potential to save me time later. That is, if I answer the question in a 
tutorial or in improved API documentation, that's one less question for 
someone to ask down the road ;)

On the other hand, I don't have any personal need for a Canvas-like 
widget. If I did, I probably would have developed one by now. For that 
matter, if it were something I could knock out in an afternoon or two, I 
might go ahead and do it out of the kindness of my heart; but I have the 
feeling it's a more substantial development effort than that ;) If 
someone were to take this project on themselves, I would do my best to 
support them and, if it were their wish, incorporate it into the 
standard FXRuby library at some point.