[Gambas-user] Documentation glitch with Iconview ?

[Benoit Minisini]

On mardi 8 janvier 2008, Fabien Bodard wrote:
> Le Tuesday 08 January 2008 19:37:06 Benoit Minisini, vous avez écrit :
> > On mardi 8 janvier 2008, manuel viet wrote:
> > > Benoit Minisini wrote:
> > > > On mardi 8 janvier 2008, manuel viet wrote:
> > > >> Serious question now, is it possible to build custom
> > > >> controls in gambas and integrate them in the IDE ?
> > > >> Last I tried (1.9.47) it wasn't working yet.
> > > >
> > > > Not really, unless you put it in a component inside the gambas source
> > > > tree.
> > >
> > > I understand you've already plenty to do with the code
> > > cleanup and the 64 bits support, but I really think it
> > > would be a major bonus if Gambas could load custom
> > > controls in the IDE at runtime ; many time, you just
> > > don't have the possibility to build a full application,
> > > but you somehow have tiny ideas that are ideal to
> > > improve or create a control. Or you don't finish a
> > > project, but there are already classes that could just
> > > be spin off.  If people could toy around and exchange
> > > seamlessly those bits and pieces of code it could
> > > create a great incentive toward gb.
> > >
> > > Look at other great Open Source projects : Linux,
> > > TeX, Perl ; those are undoubtedly nerdy, but they
> > > gained traction not only because they were good,
> > > but also because users could make trials freely,
> > > toy with bits and pieces, share results. There are
> > > bundles of classes to try for perl, an infinite number
> > > of stylesheets for LaTeX, and countless obscure
> > > drivers for linux. None of these projects were any
> > > better than say *BSD, groff or tcl at the beginning,
> > > but they took the lead because the sharing between
> > > users was easier.
> > >
> > > The way I see it, if there was a good exchange
> > > structure of "unofficial" components in gambas it
> > > might create a great movement of adoption by the
> > > non-nerdy crowd ; maybe we could even see again
> > > basic listings printed in the press ;-) to teach normal
> > > users how to improve themselves some parts of the
> > > components. Of course, there would be an enormous
> > > amount of rubbishes, but nobody expects them to
> > > get inside the official build. But maybe some would
> > > be good enough to become official after a while ?
> > >
> > > -----
> > > --
> > > Manuel Viet
> >
> > I agree.
> >
> > Technically, you can already do 99% of a custom component. Are missing:
> >
> > * The possibility to automatically add icons in the IDE toolbar. At the
> > moment the control icons are stored directly in the IDE source code.
> >
> > * The ability to create a binary package of the component.
>
> maybe another thing is missing...
>
> the ability to have a name space for the comonents...  if custom components
> are made it reduce the luck to have classes or function conflict...
>
> And in the case where we want to 'surclass'<fr> a  class we have juste to
> give the same namespace.
>
> ....
>

I don't want namespaces. I can't stand them. Do real languages have 
namespaces? Not really. 

If two components export classes having the same name, there is no conflict in 
Gambas, there is inheritance. If they have the same name, they should mean 
the same thing.

-- 
Benoit Minisini