Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!news.stack.nl!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed1.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 05:13:14 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <mailman.3735.1364297923.2939.python-list@python.org>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=89.68.221.197; posting-account=oknH1QoAAABqzbD_5ziFTvLQsqNk2LbU
References: <68da956e-ebe0-4f58-92cd-f7ffff0075b4@googlegroups.com> <mailman.3699.1364240574.2939.python-list@python.org> <4b2d2295-cffd-4965-8d75-ebd4f0b9da32@googlegroups.com> <mailman.3702.1364245741.2939.python-list@python.org> <cce95d1c-ddce-429b-a763-b99e45fb5940@googlegroups.com> <mailman.3735.1364297923.2939.python-list@python.org>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Help me pick an API design (OO vs functional)
From: Michael Herrmann <michael.herrmann@getautoma.com>
To: comp.lang.python@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: python-list@python.org
Precedence: list
Message-ID: <mailman.3740.1364300577.2939.python-list@python.org>
Lines: 49
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:41891

On Tuesday, March 26, 2013 12:38:35 PM UTC+1, Chris Angelico wrote:
> ...
> Fundamental point: As I understand the API, it doesn't *actually* tie
> to a window. You don't locate the Notepad window and send it keys -
> you switch focus to Notepad and then send keys to the whole system. Is
> this correct? I'm basing my understanding on this paragraph from your
> original post:
>=20
> > We do not (yet) have a functionality that allows you to explicitly swit=
ch to a
> > specific window. Such a functionality would for instance make it possib=
le to
> > open two Notepad windows using the start(...) command, and copy text
> > between them.
>=20
> If so, then all of the method-based options are effectively lying,
> because they imply a binding that's not there. The actual sequence of
> actions includes imperatives of "switch to some other window", so I
> think that's what the API should reflect. Otherwise, there's risk that
> something will get horribly horribly confused between the programmer's
> brain and the end result (which could happen on either side of your
> code).

As I just wrote in my reply to Dave, internally we know very well which win=
dow an action is to be performed in. This window is the window that'd be in=
 the foreground after the previous action, if nothing interferes with the s=
ystem while the script is being executed. A common exception is when you en=
ter commands in the interactive interpreter: say you write

    >>> start("Notepad")

The Notepad window opens, but for you to enter the next command, you have t=
o switch back to the interpreter window. If you do that, and enter

    >>> write("Hello World")

then we remember that you were previously working with the Notepad window a=
nd activate this window before performing the key strokes to type "Hello Wo=
rld".

> But if you can unambiguously identify a running instance of something
> and switch to it, then a method on the object that start() returns
> would be absolutely correct. So I'd be looking at either your second
> or fourth options from the original post.

Those are also my favorites at the moment :)

Michael
www.getautoma.com