Making wxPython a standard module?

[Torsten Bronger]

Hallöchen!

Grant Edwards writes:

> [...]
>
> IMO, a few of the "un-Pythonic" things about wxPython are:
>
>  1) Window ID numbers.

When I started to use wxPython, there was a newly-introduced
wx.ID_ANY that you could give instead of -1.  My eyes filtered it
out after a couple of hours, just as they do with "self".

> [...]
>
>  2) the "flags" parameter.

Well, I like flags, and I don't see that they are unpythonic.  I
find the code they produce very legible.

> [...]
>     
>  3) the parent/child tree

See wx.ID_ANY.

> [...]
>
>  4) sizers

Maybe because I come from TeX/LaTeX, i liked sizers immediately.
They worked well for me.

> [...]
>
>  5) binding
>
>       "What? you wanted a button that _did_ something when you
>       clicked it?"

You're right, this can be better.  There's too much explicitness.
However, if you really hate the construct, you can define a
shortcut.

> [...]
>
>  6) Thousands of wx.UPPER_CASE_INTEGER_HEX_CONSTANTS

Thank you for the thorough explanations but in my opinion your
points are minor.  Additionally, most of them are a matter of taste.
I don't think that because you didn't find sizers convenient, or
some parts too explicit, you can say that wxWidgets is un-Pythonic.
I rather have the impression that you like terseness, which is
totally okay but a different thing.

I agree that changing the naming conventions and making use of
properties would increase pythonicness, but on an already high
level.

Tschö,
Torsten.

-- 
Torsten Bronger, aquisgrana, europa vetus
                   Jabber ID: torsten.bronger at jabber.rwth-aachen.de