[ANN] EasyGUI_Qt version 0.9

[wxjmfauth at gmail.com]

Le samedi 3 janvier 2015 18:39:32 UTC+1, Mark Lawrence a écrit :
> On 03/01/2015 17:11, André Roberge wrote:
> > On Saturday, 3 January 2015 04:52:21 UTC-4, wxjm... at gmail.com  wrote:
> >> Le vendredi 2 janvier 2015 20:11:25 UTC+1, André Roberge a écrit :
> >>> On Friday, 2 January 2015 06:29:37 UTC-4, wxjm... at gmail.com  wrote:
> >>>> Le mercredi 31 décembre 2014 23:24:50 UTC+1, André Roberge a écrit :
> >>>>> EasyGUI_Qt version 0.9 has been released.  This is the first announcement about EasyGUI_Qt on this list.
> >>> snip
> >>>> I toyed and I spent a couple of hours with it.
> >>>> I do not know to much what to say.
> >>> Well, this is more positive than your previous comment expressing doubt that it would work. ;-)   So, thank you!
> >>
> >> Do not get me wrong, I do not wish to be rude.
> >> You are building a tool upon a toolkit which
> >> simply does not work properly.
> >>
> >> If for some reason you are not aware of this,
> >> you are not aware of this, it is unfortunately
> >> a simple as this.
> >>
> >> (Not only I know why, I'm able to explain the
> >> cause).
> >
> > Would you care to elaborate?  All the code I have written works correctly on all the tests I have done.  I do have reports from a user using a Mac with Python 2.7 for which some widgets did not quite work properly ... but that's all I have heard about problems with it.
> >
> > I would like to hear about the problems you know about either here, on by filing an issue at https://github.com/aroberge/easygui_qt/issues
> >>
> >> jmf
> 
> I hope you know that you're engaging with a person who makes statements 
> about the inadequacies of various tools, but when challenged to provide 
> evidence to support his claims he can never do so.  He is our "Resident 
> Unicode Expert", in other words when it comes to Unicode he hasn't got 
> the faintest idea what he's talking about, at least with respect to PEP 
> 393 and the Flexible String Representation.  Please ignore him as he's 
> just not worth the effort.
> 
> -- 
> My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
> what you can do for our language.

Related to the subject.
I suggest you recommend "Qt" to use it. I will
certainly not do it.
At least, try to put MvL and PT in touch.

jmf