wxruby users - Aug 2007 - SURVEY: wxRuby API style

Hi

As we''re getting closer to a stable release of wxRuby, I''d
like to get
your views on the API style. There''s a survey here:

http://rubyforge.org/survey/survey.php?group_id=35&survey_id=66

I''d like to know if you''d like to see two wxSugar syntax
features become
part of core, standard wxRuby version 2.0. These are:

1) Allow ruby-style accessors as well as C++ style getters/setters. This 
means you can write

frame.title = ''my frame''
# as well as
frame.set_title(''my frame'')

or
frame.title
# as well as
frame.get_title

2) Allow keyword constructors for window classes. This means you can write

frame = Wx::Frame.new(parent, :title => ''foo'', :style =>
Wx::DEFAULT_FRAME_STYLE)
as well as
frame = Wx::Frame.new(parent, -1, ''foo'', Wx::DEFAULT_POSITION,
Wx::DEFAULT_SIZE, Wx::DEFAULT_FRAME_STYLE)

In both cases, these would be based on the current wxSugar 
implementation, which is 100% backwards compatible - no existing code 
would need to be changed.

Please feel free to comment on this thread here also

thanks
alex

Hi

Just a reminder to vote soon on the API style survey here:

http://rubyforge.org/survey/survey.php?group_id=35&survey_id=66

we''ll be closing voting at the beginning of next week and announcing
the
results, so please do get your vote in and let us know what direction 
you''d like wxRuby to go...

thanks
alex

Alex Fenton wrote:
> As we''re getting closer to a stable release of wxRuby,
I''d like to get
> your views on the API style. There''s a survey here:
>
> http://rubyforge.org/survey/survey.php?group_id=35&survey_id=66
>
> I''d like to know if you''d like to see two wxSugar syntax
features become
> part of core, standard wxRuby version 2.0. These are:
>
> 1) Allow ruby-style accessors as well as C++ style getters/setters. This 
> means you can write
>
> frame.title = ''my frame''
> # as well as
> frame.set_title(''my frame'')
>
> or
> frame.title
> # as well as
> frame.get_title
>
> 2) Allow keyword constructors for window classes. This means you can write
>
> frame = Wx::Frame.new(parent, :title => ''foo'', :style
=>
> Wx::DEFAULT_FRAME_STYLE)
> as well as
> frame = Wx::Frame.new(parent, -1, ''foo'',
Wx::DEFAULT_POSITION,
> Wx::DEFAULT_SIZE, Wx::DEFAULT_FRAME_STYLE)
>
> In both cases, these would be based on the current wxSugar 
> implementation, which is 100% backwards compatible - no existing code 
> would need to be changed.
>
> Please feel free to comment on this thread here also
>
> thanks
> alex
>
> _______________________________________________
> wxruby-users mailing list
> wxruby-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/wxruby-users
>

Already voted :)

On 8/29/07, Alex Fenton <alex at pressure.to>
wrote:
> Hi
>
> Just a reminder to vote soon on the API style survey here:
>
> http://rubyforge.org/survey/survey.php?group_id=35&survey_id=66
>
> we''ll be closing voting at the beginning of next week and
announcing the
> results, so please do get your vote in and let us know what direction
> you''d like wxRuby to go...
>
> thanks
> alex
>
> Alex Fenton wrote:
> > As we''re getting closer to a stable release of wxRuby,
I''d like to get
> > your views on the API style. There''s a survey here:
> >
> > http://rubyforge.org/survey/survey.php?group_id=35&survey_id=66
> >
> > I''d like to know if you''d like to see two wxSugar
syntax features become
> > part of core, standard wxRuby version 2.0. These are:
> >
> > 1) Allow ruby-style accessors as well as C++ style getters/setters.
This
> > means you can write
> >
> > frame.title = ''my frame''
> > # as well as
> > frame.set_title(''my frame'')
> >
> > or
> > frame.title
> > # as well as
> > frame.get_title
> >
> > 2) Allow keyword constructors for window classes. This means you can
write
> >
> > frame = Wx::Frame.new(parent, :title => ''foo'',
:style =>
> > Wx::DEFAULT_FRAME_STYLE)
> > as well as
> > frame = Wx::Frame.new(parent, -1, ''foo'',
Wx::DEFAULT_POSITION,
> > Wx::DEFAULT_SIZE, Wx::DEFAULT_FRAME_STYLE)
> >
> > In both cases, these would be based on the current wxSugar
> > implementation, which is 100% backwards compatible - no existing code
> > would need to be changed.
> >
> > Please feel free to comment on this thread here also
> >
> > thanks
> > alex
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > wxruby-users mailing list
> > wxruby-users at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/wxruby-users
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> wxruby-users mailing list
> wxruby-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/wxruby-users
>