[Kde-bindings] QtRuby Hello World

[Richard Dale]

On Saturday 02 August 2003 14:24, Alexander Kellett wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 03:43:48PM +0100, Richard Dale wrote:
> > The original RubyQt bindings left the classnames as 'QWidget' rather than
> > 'Qt::Widget', so existing code wouldn't be compatible - I don't know if
> > that matters. And do ruby programmers prefer to have method names in
> > lower case/underscores rather than mixed case (I'd personally prefer to
> > leave the names as they are)?
>
> i'd agree leave them as they are.
> the Qt:: vs Q thing is very easy to
> take in. converting c++ tutorial code
> into qtruby would be much harder to do
> if underscores were used. anyway. i've
> had little problems up to now with it.
> i just keep to using underscores for
> my own slots/signals, i actually like
> this quite a bit :)
>
> any more options (Q, lowercase/underscore)
> will just end up fragmenting the coder
> base so, i don't think its really a
> good idea technically, or "politically"
Right, good.. thats, thats then agreed. It's the kind of thing thats really 
easy before you've got a user base, and then just one stroppy guy can cause a 
fuss.

This link has an interesting discussion of how signals/slots should look in 
ruby:

http://www.ruby-talk.org/32967

But I think the current 'slots ..' and 'signals ..' lists look ok apart from 
the C++ types in them. That could probably be fixed - I don't have the user 
seeing and C++ in the java bindings. Although I would prefer there to be a 
standard 'scripting view' of the Qt C++ types - who wants to see 'const 
QString&' or whatever in a scripting language?

-- Richard