Ok() and IsOk()

[Francesco Montorsi]

Bill Baxter ha scritto:
> On 10/5/06, Francesco Montorsi 
> <f18m_cpp217828 at yahoo.it> wrote:
>> Julian Smart ha scritto:
>> > perhaps Ok/IsOK should be made interchangeable in all classes, rather
>> > than deprecating one or the other.
> 
>> > Francesco Montorsi wrote:
>> right - this is ok to me (even if I think that all docs should be
>> modified to document only the "IsOk" functions - otherwise only the
>> small set of people reading this thread would know about this change 
>> ;))...
>>
>> I've posted a smart script which automates all the required changes...
> 
> So you mean, like Julian suggests, your script also *adds* Ok()s to
> every class that didn't have them before?
no, sorry - I forgot to say that my patch only adds IsOk() functions to 
those classes which have Ok() only - nothing else.

>  It seems unnecessary to add
> methods that are basically deprecated from the start.
I agree

> What's wrong with some classes having only IsOK, and some having both,
> with all Ok()'s having no docstrings but regular comments that
> indicate they are deprecated.
I'm not sure what you mean by regular comments but my patch (or more 
precisely "script") changes all Ok() occurrences in docs with IsOk().
So that Ok() functions are not documented anymore.

Hopefully this will lead people writing new code to use only IsOk() and 
maybe for wx 4 we will be able to deprecate the Ok() version ;)

Francesco