[Kde-bindings] Re: kdebindings/qtruby (silent)

[Richard Dale]

On Wednesday 30 July 2003 15:41, Heinrich Küttler wrote:
> Hi, just some random remarks.
>
> Richard Dale wrote:
> >>else. if you are out of time (i really hope not), i'm
> >>really not at all interested in doing any real c++ at
> >>the moment, but bindings work could be fun, so, any
> >>chance you could fill in the TODO list with a few things
> >>i could help out on?, first thing i'll do is to take a
> >>look for an answer to your "include Qt" question first.
> >
> > Yes, top of the to do list, is writing a to do list :). The original
> > RubyQt bindings needed both a require and an include, but when I looked
> > at the gtk bindings they just needed a require.
>
> Well, the original bindings did not *need* the include, it was just
> convenient not to write 'Qt2::' everywhere.
>
> > Should there be a runtime option to use underscores and lower case only
> > in method names?
>
> I feel somehow like leaving Qt as much like it is in C++ is a good idea.
> For various reasons, probably mostly unreasonable ones. But at least
> this one seems sensible: There is a nice lisp function for (X)Emacs,
> which pops up a konqy window showing the Qt documentation of the class
> the cursor is on. This is quite nice, but it works only with the full Qt
> names, like 'QWidget'. Therefore, it would be nice to have a runtime
> option to leave the Q's there. On the other hand, this makes several
> scripts look unnecessarily different.
The top priority for me is to make QtRuby as similar to PerlQt as possible, so 
having compatible namespaces is more important than backwards compatibility 
with RubyQt. Perl::Qt::Widget maybe coming!! I would prefer to convert 
QWidget syntax to Qt::Widget with a script rather than offer a runtime option 
which would prolong the use, but a runtime option is still possible. The 
underscores vs. mixed case method names I see as a different issue - does 
QtRuby 'look right' as is? I'd like to hear from ruby programmers to find 
out.

> > Adapt puic to create a rbuic tool (I was going to do that next I think)
>
> The original RubyQt had both a ruby script (ui2rb) and a hacked uic for
> this purpose, this sould really be reusable.
Well, there have been big changes to the uic format since Qt 2.0, so I don't 
think I can use any of it. Once I've done a ruby version of puic, I'd like to 
try hacking a ruby version of the java juic XSLT based tool (in 
kdebindings/qtjava/designer/juic) to see how that compares..

-- Richard