Brian Victor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Torsten Bronger wrote: > >> I've been having a closer look at wxPython which is not Pythonic at > >> all and bad documented. Probably I'll use it nevertheless. > > Aye. Couldn't agree more. > > You know, whenever someone mentions wxPython being badly documented, > I have to wonder whether they know about the nearly 2000 page PDF of > wxWidgets documentation, which is available in html at > http://www.wxwidgets.org/manuals/2.6.1/wx_contents.html
All of which is oriented toward C++ programmers, with all the language assumptions inherent to that. > wxPython has the same API as wxWidgets, except where indicated in > that manual. If in doubt, you can also consult > http://wxpython.org/docs/api/ That being part of the problem. Putting pieces together in C++ is quite a different mindset to putting them together in Python. > I apologize if you already know about these things, but I find > myself continually surprised that "wxPython is badly documented" has > become conventional wisdom when I have never found that to be the > case. Quantity of documentation doesn't equal quality. That said, the wxPython 2.6 release saw a renewed push toward getting comprehensive API documentation online; it's coming together, slowly. It still feels like wxPython is a second-class citizen in the wx world. -- \ "I was the kid next door's imaginary friend." -- Emo Philips | `\ | _o__) | Ben Finney <http://www.benfinney.id.au/> -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
