On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 3:59 PM, Mark Summerfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2008-10-03, Paul A. Giannaros wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 5:08 PM, Mark Summerfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > On 2008-10-03, Phil Thompson wrote: >> >> On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 17:11:19 +0200, Detlev Offenbach >> > >> > Here's my personal "wish list" for Python 3/PyQt4 (including those that >> > Phil is going to do as he says above): >> > >> > - No QString, only str, plus some static functions for things that str >> > doesn't provide, e.g., QString.simplified(s : str) -> str >> > - No QByteArray, only bytes (or bytearray) >> > - No QVariant, only object >> > - Guarantee that "from PyQt4.QtGui import *" and similar will only >> > import objects whose name begins with capital Q. >> >> That'd be cool. An alternative that I think would be even better >> would be to provide a "Qt" namespace as per QtRuby and drop the >> Q prefix from the classes, so Qt.Application, Qt.Widget, &c. >> That'd dodge the ugly namespace pollution while not causing >> much more typing. > > I like that:-) > > But how do we then distinguish QtGui.QApplication from > QtCore.QApplication? (Or does that even matter?) > > But I'm not keen on pyqt4 and other lowercase names as Daniel suggested. > IMO lowercase is for Python's standard packages; I think mixed cased is > best for own and third party to help avoid clashes. >
Is there any reasonable expectation of a pyqt* class in the core library? -- Fedora 9 : sulphur is good for the skin ( www.pembo13.com ) _______________________________________________ PyQt mailing list PyQt@riverbankcomputing.com http://www.riverbankcomputing.com/mailman/listinfo/pyqt
