Any chance you could provide a simplified interface along the lines
discussed at length in

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.lang.ruby/messages/36fe4224ced792ff,7824fe1d05b4f648,ffa0c9b33be25877,453e05fefa6610b4,79dd1925715e2b10,3c7c01a279f685f6,fc636d28f68f9266,78ac98a3c718caa4,4f3960a377f7eed1,99bd3fcd397cf7d1?thread_id=b901e483a6711f72&mode=thread&noheader=1&q=UI+hal+fulton#doc_36fe4224ced792ff

It basically let's Ruby code look structurally like the ui structure, and
uses some variation of dynamic binding to more cleanly define, override, and
lookup wide-ranging defaults.

I for one would gravitate strongly towards such a simplified interface ...

"Nick" <devel / nicreations.com> wrote in message
news:41BEFE07.5080304 / nicreations.com...
>
> So, having subscribed recently to the ruby-talk mailing list, I've
> noticed that wxruby doesn't seem to have the "respect" of other GUI
> libraries.  I know GUI-library preference is a holy war almost up there
> with vi versus emacs, but since I'm a wxruby developer, I'd like to know
> what people "don't" like about wxruby. Otherwise, how else do we improve?
>
> Browsing online, I've found a few complaints:
>
> Difficulty in getting it installed -  Daniel Sheppard,
> http://www.jroller.com/page/soxbox/
> Use of ugly integer values for event handlers -
> http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~naseby/31.html
>
> It's a good start (though I don't know what platform Mr. Sheppard is
> trying to install on), but any other discussion would be most helpful.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Nick
>
>