> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of David B. Held > Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 1:18 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [boost] Re: UI++ [was: GUI sublanguage; Re: GUI/GDI template > library] > > "Philippe A. Bouchard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > David B. Held wrote: > > [...] > > > To bring a bit of sobering reality to the project, I would suggest > > > picking a simple, even trivial target project (like displaying some > > > trivial dialog box). > > > > This is exactly what I wanted first: a project based on portable > > rectangles, windows, stylish frames, menus, fonts & events. > > Thanks for confirming. > > [...] > > I am of the opinion that the library should use native widgets. It > sounds to me like you want to create a custom universal widget > set, but of course, this is going to be a hot-button issue for this > library. I think the majority of people who have chimed in have > also voted for or assumed native widgets, but I could be wrong.
I strongly support native widgets too. I want the Windows version of my program to look like a windows program and the Mac version to look like a Mac program. This also saves us from having to develop our own widgets. > An interesting question is whether the library could support a > native widget set as an abstract third-party platform. Then people > who want that exact portable look and feel can get it by specifying > the custom widget platform. That's a great point. If our library is well designed it should support this type of customization naturally. We can have our cake and eat it too :) That reminds me of something I was thinking about your post on wxWindows. Someone could always write a 'driver' targeting wxWindows if they want quick access to all of the platforms it supports and don't mind the LGPL. Brock _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
