scott at asofyet.org
Sun May 13 19:46:37 BST 2007
On May 13, 2007, at 11:32 AM, Aaron Trevena wrote:
> On 12/05/07, muppet <scott at asofyet.org> wrote:
>> <plug intensity="shameless">But why did you do it in C when we have
>> Gtk2 in perl?</plug>
> Because the C is documented, and even has a handy Book. Last time I
> looked most the Perl GTK docs referred you to the C docs.
That's mostly because of the desire not to duplicate the
documentation effort. I'd considered once writing something to
scrape the docs from the C sources and munge them into perldoc in an
automated fashion; however, it would either require somebody
remembering to do it, or require the end user to have a copy of gtk
+'s C source on hand, both of which are doomed to failure.
Bleh, when i started with the old gtk-perl, i was over a year into it
before i discovered that docs existed for the perl binding.
> Doing it in C first made doing it with Perl much easier though.
I actually use the Gtk2-Perl manpages for developing with gtk+ in any
language, because they are very handy. But then, i already have some
clue what the functions do, and only need a reminder of their
signatures. That's also what makes me a poor choice for the
documentation writer -- my sense of obviousness is skewed.
One, two, free, four, five, six, sebben, eight, nine, ten, elebben,
twull, fourteen, sickteen, sebbenteen, eightteen, elebbenteen,
-- Zella, aged three, counting to twenty.
More information about the london.pm