wxruby users - Apr 2006 - Rubyfication of wxWindows

As I posted to the list, at some point after we''ve fixed all the gaping
huge holes we''ll begin plastering over the rougher spots in wxRuby2.  I
was giving some thoughts to predicate methods, of which there are quite 
a few in wxWindows.  My question is, how far from the wxWindows 
documentation do we want to move?  Do we want to have aliases for all 
renamed methods?

Example:


      wxPen::Ok

*bool* *Ok*() *const*

Returns true if the pen is initialised.


The ''correct'' Ruby way to do this would be:  
''ok?''   Should we also
keep ''ok''?

Another example:


      wxCaret::IsOk

*bool* *IsOk*() *const*

Returns true if the caret was created successfully.

One possibly ''correct'' Ruby way to do this, also, is: 
''ok?''  Should we
also have an ''is_ok?''  How about ''is_ok''?

There are quite a number of IsXxxx functions.

Roy

On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 22:14 -0400, Roy Sutton wrote:
> My question is, how far from the wxWindows 
> documentation do we want to move?  Do we want to have aliases for all 
> renamed methods?
> 
I think it would be valuable to retain the complete set of original
methods, so people can use C++ or python wx docs and not have to guess
about what wxruby uses. 
>       wxCaret::IsOk
> 
> *bool* *IsOk*() *const*
> 
> Returns true if the caret was created successfully.
> 
> One possibly ''correct'' Ruby way to do this, also, is: 
''ok?''  Should we
> also have an ''is_ok?''  How about
''is_ok''?
> 
> There are quite a number of IsXxxx functions.
My first reaction would be to have "is_ok" and "is_ok?".
Presumably we
could automatically generate the ? versions with code.

Kevin