[wx-dev] Re: about event table macros -- opinions about macros naming convention wanted

[Robin Dunn]

Julian Smart wrote:
> Francesco Montorsi wrote:
>>
>>> Are we sure this name change is essential, especially considering the 
>>> perhaps many thousands of people who will have to re-learn all these 
>>> macros? What were the original reasons?
>> 1) more coherence in wx API: we should define that all macros defined 
>> by wx begin with either "wx" or "WX_" and then stick with that 
>> convention. This makes the user sources both more elegant and easier 
>> to write.
>>
>> 2) avoid the rare circumstance of name clash: nothing defined by wx 
>> should be without a "wx" (or WX_) prefix...
> I can buy (1), but (2) is entirely theoretical - I've never heard of 
> anyone having a problem with clashes, so someone relearning the syntax 
> and changing 100s of 1000s of lines of code (for consistency with new 
> code) might wonder why a problem that's never bitten anyone is being 
> solved :-) As for (1), on the one hand I agree with more coherence. On 
> the other hand I wonder if the increased consistency is worth the price, 
> when so much code has been written over > 10 years. We substitute one 
> inconsistency with another - that of old versus new syntax, possibly in 
> the same application. It would be interesting to hear from other users 
> on the subject - maybe they'd prefer the consistency.

Personally, I'd rather not fix something that isn't broken.  It may not 
be the best it could be currently, but it has been used this way with 
very little complaints for a very long time.


-- 
Robin Dunn
Software Craftsman
http://wxPython.org  Java give you jitters?  Relax with wxPython!