| | [ Return to Bugs & Features | Roadmap 2.0 | Post Text | Post File ]
STR #1978
| Application: | FLTK Library |
|---|
| Status: | 5 - New |
|---|
| Priority: | 1 - Request for Enhancement, e.g. asking for a feature |
|---|
| Scope: | 3 - Applies to all machines and operating systems |
|---|
| Subsystem: | Unassigned |
|---|
| Summary: | There is a fair amout of "kruft" in fuction names |
|---|
| Version: | 2.0-feature |
|---|
| Created By: | craigd |
|---|
| Assigned To: | Unassigned |
|---|
| Fix Version: | Unassigned |
|---|
| Update Notification: | |
|---|
Trouble Report Files:
[ Post File ]No files
Trouble Report Comments:
[ Post Text ]
| |
| #1 | craigd
01:30 Jun 11, 2008 |
| There is a fair amount of what I'd call "kruft" and inconsistencies in the function names of 2.0. Assuming 2.0 is a clean up rev, it could be an opportunity to address these. For example, most of the "set*" functions are "set_" but setcolor, setTextColor, setPixel, setcell exist, which differ in "_" and case.
Another example is Tooltip::enabled, enable, and disable. I'd like to see these collapsed into one function: enabled([b]). The various names may have made sense in a C world but not in overloaded C++ [aside: I'm coming at this as someone who is writing a language binding, and would rather write/understand 1 function instead of 3). | |
| |
| #2 | craigd
01:40 Jun 11, 2008 |
| Addition to last comment: If it is not reasonable to collapse stuff like enabled/enable/disable, it would be nice to at least pick one and overload it so the others can be ignored. | |
[ Return to Bugs & Features | Post Text | Post File ]
|
| |
FLTK Apps 
