wxperl-users

[wxperl-users] (?:W|w)xPerl::Constructors

[Eric W. <scr...@gm...>]

Hi all,

Now that it is roughly done, I think all I need is a name before putting 
it on CPAN.  Any objections to wxPerl::Constructors?

Documentation:

  http://scratchcomputing.com/tmp/WxPerl-Constructors.html
  http://scratchcomputing.com/tmp/WxPerl-Constructors-doc.html
  http://scratchcomputing.com/tmp/WxPerl-Constructors-argmap.html

The main change in WP::C::doc.pod being to change 'pos' to 
'position' (which avoids the aesthetic issue of using a perl builtin 
which often highlights as a function despite the fact that perl allows 
it to be unquoted via => hash-quoting rules.)  I thought about 'posi', 
which is good in that it has the same number of characters as 'size'.  
Also, 'poz' might work since it is pronounced the same.  Alternatively 
'place' keeps us in the same neighborhood as 'style' in terms of key 
length.

In the end, I went with the longhand under the assumption that you 
almost never need to specify a value for position.  Is that about 
right?  I'm thinking it *might* get used in dialogs and frames if the 
window manager can't do its job for some reason.  For me, it has always 
been a piece of padding that I have to mention before I can specify a 
style.  If someone has a frequent use case, I can shorten it.

Anyway... running code:

  svn co http://scratchcomputing.com/svn/WxPerl-Constructors/trunk

Thanks,
Eric
-- 
Consumers want choice, consumers want openness.
--Rob Glaser
---------------------------------------------------
    http://scratchcomputing.com
---------------------------------------------------

Re: [wxperl-users] (?:W|w)xPerl::Constructors

[Mattia B. <mat...@li...>]

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 18:38:55 -0700
Eric Wilhelm <scr...@gm...> wrote:

  Hi,

> Now that it is roughly done, I think all I need is a name before putting 
> it on CPAN.  Any objections to wxPerl::Constructors?

  Not from me :-) you might want to ask for advice on module-authors
before starting a new top-level namespace, though.

> In the end, I went with the longhand under the assumption that you 
> almost never need to specify a value for position.  Is that about 
> right?  I'm thinking it *might* get used in dialogs and frames if the 
> window manager can't do its job for some reason.

  This is the only use I can think of, and I find 'position' better
than the other alternatives you mentioned.

Regards
Mattia

Re: [wxperl-users] wxPerl::Constructors

[Eric W. <scr...@gm...>]

# from Mattia Barbon
# on Sunday 18 March 2007 10:50 pm:

>Any objections to wxPerl::Constructors?
>
>=A0 Not from me :-) you might want to ask for advice on module-authors
>before starting a new top-level namespace, though.

That's sort of a misconception about "top-level" namespaces.  In the=20
past, it's always been "just don't claim it all for yourself", so=20
"wxPerl::Foo" is fine, but "wxPerl.pm" might be a little audacious (as=20
in: "Behold! I have forged the one true wxPerl thingy!")

Thus, I think I'll go ahead and run with wxPerl::Constructors rather=20
than any more waiting around.

Of course, *you* would be the authority on whether "wxPerl.pm" was okay=20
to use.  If you later decide to bundle-up (or con somebody else into=20
doing it) all of the conveniences into one spot, that might be it.  At=20
that point, you could just require wxPerl::Constructors and have it all=20
available.

Thanks,
Eric
=2D-=20
The opinions expressed in this e-mail were randomly generated by
the computer and do not necessarily reflect the views of its owner.
=2D-Management
=2D--------------------------------------------------
    http://scratchcomputing.com
=2D--------------------------------------------------