Re: Organising the xwt namespace

Charles Goodwin <[email protected]> writes:
> You instantiate a non-widget and you get nothing physical, only
> behavioural.

This is an important distinction.

Do you think that we can make a convention that non-physical templates
must end in "-able"?  I would prefer that over forking the namespace in
order to keep with the mantra of "fork the namespace only when that is
the only way to accomplish your goal".

Here our goal is to make sure that users understand which templates
can be "instantiated" and which cannot.  If the -able convention
accomplishes that goal, we should stick with it rather than branching
the namespace.

  - a


_______________________________________________
http://lists.xwt.org/listinfo/dev