From: Hal Fulton <hal9000@...>
Date: 2004-04-08T16:40:32+09:00
Subject: Re: Idea: Simplified GTK

Gregory Millam wrote:
> Received: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 15:18:53 +0900
> And lo, Hal wrote:
> 
> 
>>Maybe we could allow both. I'm a believer (though some are not) in a
>>little "magic" parameter handling.
>>
>>In other words, we could code it so as to permit calling it either way.
> 
> This is, of course, doable, but I don't think this kind of "overloading" 
> would be easily readable or understandable when learning ezgtk. 

To me, it's like gsub with/without a block, ranges or regexes
in String#[], and so on. TMTOWTDI.

I don't wish to be unreasonable or be "not a team player" -- assuming
we actually do anything with this -- but if it doesn't at least *permit*
coding in some style that I like, then my motivation to help work on it
is diminished.

 > I'm more
> in favor of shortcuts like:
> 
> button {
>   label "foo"
>   onclick {...}
> }

The Tk-ish look. That's ok for complex cases.

> button_onclick "foo" {
>   ...
> }

Hmm, I disapprove. It's like making a name out of what should be a name
and some kind of qualifier.

> Maybe an easier name like:
> 
> ezbutton "foo" {
>   ...
> }

Why would ezbutton be better than button here?

I'm still leaning toward writing it in such a way that we can each
choose our styles.

To reiterate, I'd like the simplest case to look like this:

   @b1 = button "Label" { call_me }

with the possibility of modifying a created widget:

   @b1.setup do
     border 10
     blah blah
     whatever 123
     on_enter { do_this }
   end

though I'm not picky about the name "setup" -- I considered others
such as: do, change, modify, etc.

And I do think it's reasonable to allow the other form also:

   button do
     label "Label"
     this "that"
     on_click { do_something }
     blah foo
   end

But let's talk... only trouble is I'm very tired right now, as it's
2:40 am here.


Cheers,
Hal