> Perhaps; I'm new to Ruby.  I haven't seen anything in the RAA for this,
and
> it seems that none of the GUI toolkit bindings are at all Ruby-esque.  In
my
> mind, this means that it is still an issue.

Since the Ruby language bindings for FOX (i.e. FXRuby) are still under
development, this statement is especially interesting to me. The first big
push was to just get everything covered, i.e. provide access to all of FOX's
widgets' functionality with pretty much the same API used for the underlying
C++ library. With perhaps a few exceptions here and there, this much is
done. What I'd like to pursue next is, as you put it, make the bindings more
"Ruby-esque".

The first move towards this was to provide aliases for commonly used
accessor functions so that the syntax is a little cleaner. For example, to
change the text displayed on a button with the standard FXButton API you
would do something like this:

    myButton.setText( myButton.getText() + " (modified)" )

but with the new aliases you can simplify it to:

    myButton.text += " (modified)"

They are functionally the same, but I think in many cases the latter form is
more natural.

Some of the other areas I'm considering now are allowing the user to provide
code blocks as message handler functions, and providing iterator-like
functions on "list-like" classes. I'm open to other suggestions about how to
make the FXRuby API more "Ruby-esque".