Re: [wxperl-users] A few things + questions ..

[Mattia B. <mb...@ds...>]

> Mattia Barbon wrote:
> 
> >>I'll make a start for this soon and would like to invite everyone to 
> >>contribute. My experience is that the wxWindows docs themselves are not 
> >>quite what you're looking for while building a wxPerl application, 
> >>because it's not always clear wether a function or class is implemented 
> >>
> >The "implemented class" part is not that difficult; the "implemented function"
> >part should be doable (automatically); which way should implemented/not
> >implemented classes/dunctions be marked?
> >
> Well, a simple remark like 'wxPerl note: this function is not 
> implemented'  under a function that is not implemented would do for me. 
Ok

> And for the Validators: how they are implemented in wxPerl, and for 
Hmm, yes, I forgot that

> something I stumbled into (from the top of my head, I don't have the 
> code here): GetPlItemData (or something) for the Tree control, for which 
> I can't find any documentation.
GetPlData, documented under GetItemData

> These are just things I can think of right now, but I'm sure there are 
> more things that should be documented.
> 
> Another thing that wouldn't be a bad idea I personally think, is to have 
> the possibility of having the documentation available in POD format. I 
> don't have a problem with the HTML documentation, but I know there are a 
> *lot* of Perl programmers who *love* POD , and would appreciate the 
> availability of the docs in this format.
The problem is that this is a big task; in addition it does not require
XS/C++/wxWindows knowledge, so if someone writes a TeX -> POD converter
that works for wxWindows docs, I'll probably include it in the distribution;
but *I* won't write it.

> >>in wxPerl or not, what parameters wxPerl expects and so on.
> >>
> >If you could sketch some way to make parameter wxPerl expects,
> >or whatever, clearer, *and* if this can be made automatically
> >(i.e. by a script), I could incorporate this in the docs.
> >
> I have to think about this. I think of something like simply showing how 
> you would call it from Perl, like:
> 
> $button = Wx::Button->new($parentid, etc etc)
Yes
 
> Which is significantly different from how you would call the constructor 
> in C++. It's all considered as common knowledge, but a starter would not 
> always understand how to read the C++ docs.
It would be nice to have a way to write (in a perl-programmer-friendly way)
which type each argument is, and which arguments are optional/have a default
value; but I can't think of something that is both compact and
perl-programmer-friendly

Regards
Mattia