On 13 Sep 2009, at 21:54, Matthias Melcher wrote: > > I know and understand your concerns. I have been ping-ponging between > versions a few times. > > The FLTK2 API is better, but the FLTK1 codebase is much more stable. > So what can we do? > > I don't mind at all to take a large chunk of FLTK2 API aspects into > FLTK3. The base concept is very similar. After all, they are based on > each other and have the same core author. You'd be surprised how > similar the calls are, once you mapped the classes like Fl_Group and > fltk::Group... . > > My goal is as little wasted code (including for our users) as > possible. A few minor name changes is still better than stalled > development, right? > > (I am on thin ice here. This is all just a proposal. If you guys don't > like my idea, please let me know)
I like the idea, more or less. If we can do it, I think we should try. (It's a shame Gerry Weaver (do I have that name right?) and his people headed off to do their own thing, as this might have suited them.) I like the *idea* of fltk2 and its API, but the actuality of it has always been a disappointment to me. The API is more or less OK, although I remain unconvinced of the merit of changing the widget origin conventions, but the code itself seems to have fallen into disrepair, and not kept up with the Good Stuff that was added to 1.1 and 1.3. And the more we use C++, the less convinced I become about the way namespaces are used in C++ : There seems to be a widespread habit of just sticking a "using namespace xyz" at the head of every file and thereby negating almost all the value that namespaces are supposed to bring. So what's the point? _______________________________________________ fltk-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk-dev
