wxruby development - Oct 2006 - include Wx in samples?

Alex Fenton wrote:
> Just for reference, it should be Wx::PLATFORM now (from 
> swig/RubyConstants). If scripts are referring to RUBY_PLATFORM, they are 
> referring to Ruby''s constant in the main namespace (eg i686-mswin)
not
> our WXMSW. I find the const confusion one reason not to ''include
Wx'' in
> samples, but appreciate it''s a matter of taste.
Yes. I prefer not to include Wx because of various possible namespace 
collisions. However, we should probably have at least one sample (maybe 
minimal.rb) written two ways--one with include Wx and the other without. 
That way people could see the difference and decide for themselves. 
Also, we could point to the one with the include if we are trying to 
stress how easy and friendly wxruby app code can look.

Just a thought.

Kevin

Kevin Smith wrote:
> Yes. I prefer not to include Wx because of various possible namespace 
> collisions. 
On reflection, it''s probably also a matter of the size of application 
being written. In a sample, we''re usually calling the core classes 
directly, so ''include Wx'' is a useful repetition-saver. In a
big ''real''
app (like Weft) it''s more usual to use subclasses. This means
it''s more
important to see where constants are coming from, and reduces the 
repetition b/c the references to constants (eg style constants) are 
encapsulated within the subclass methods (eg constructors). So ''include
Wx'' makes less sense.
> However, we should probably have at least one sample (maybe 
> minimal.rb) written two ways--one with include Wx and the other without. 
>   
Agreed.
> Also, we could point to the one with the include if we are trying to 
> stress how easy and friendly wxruby app code can look.
>   
Yep, sounds good.

alex